The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Computed Tomography Screening and Lung Cancer Outcomes
Abstract
CONTEXT: Current and former smokers are currently being screened for lung cancer with computed tomography (CT), although there are limited data on the effect screening has on lung cancer outcomes. Randomized controlled trials assessing CT screening are currently under way. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether screening may increase the frequency of lung cancer diagnosis and lung cancer resection or may reduce the risk of a diagnosis of advanced lung cancer or death from lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal analysis of 3246 asymptomatic current or former smokers screened for lung cancer beginning in 1998 either at 1 of 2 academic medical centers in the United States or an academic medical center in Italy with follow-up for a median of 3.9 years. INTERVENTION: Annual CT scans with comprehensive evaluation and treatment of detected nodules. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of predicted with observed number of new lung cancer cases, lung cancer resections, advanced lung cancer cases, and deaths from lung cancer. RESULTS: There were 144 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer compared with 44.5 expected cases (relative risk [RR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-3.8; P<.001). There were 109 individuals who had a lung resection compared with 10.9 expected cases (RR, 10.0; 95% CI, 8.2-11.9; P<.001). There was no evidence of a decline in the number of diagnoses of advanced lung cancers (42 individuals compared with 33.4 expected cases) or deaths from lung cancer (38 deaths due to lung cancer observed and 38.8 expected; RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3; P = .90). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT may increase the rate of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, but may not meaningfully reduce the risk of advanced lung cancer or death from lung cancer. Until more conclusive data are available, asymptomatic individuals should not be screened outside of clinical research studies that have a reasonable likelihood of further clarifying the potential benefits and risks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
EUROCARE-4. Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995–1999. Results and commentary
Sant, M., Allemani, C., Santaquilani, M., Knijn, A., Marchesi, F., & Capocaccia, R. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.018 · Cited by 1,021
Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology
HALL, E. J., & BRENNER, D. J. (2008) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/01948454 · Cited by 915
Boeri, M., Verri, C., Conte, D., Roz, L., Modena, P., Facchinetti, F., Calabrò, E., Croce, C. M., Pastorino, U., & Sozzi, G. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1100048108 · Cited by 722
Pastorino, U., Rossi, M., Rosato, V., Marchianò, A., Sverzellati, N., Morosi, C., Fabbri, A., Galeone, C., Negri, E., Sozzi, G., et al. (2012) · European Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.1097/cej.0b013e328351e1b6 · Cited by 414
Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening
Byrne, M. M., Weissfeld, J., & Roberts, M. S. (2008) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x08322013 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Bach, P. B.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2007-03-07
- Volume
- 297
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 953
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2141128443
- Cited by
- 567
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 77.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computed Tomography Screening and Lung Cancer Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.297.9.953
- The paper
- Bach, P. B. (2007). Computed Tomography Screening and Lung Cancer Outcomes. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.9.953
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.