Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The National Lung Screening Trial: Results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology

Open access
Pinsky, Paul F., Church, Timothy R., Izmirlian, Grant, Kramer, Barnett S.·2013·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which compared lung cancer screening with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest radiography (CXR), demonstrated a statistically significant mortality benefit of LDCT screening. In the current study, the authors performed a post hoc analysis to examine whether the benefit was affected by various baseline factors, including age, sex, and smoking status, and whether it differed by tumor histology. METHODS: Lung cancer death rates were computed as events over person‐years of observation; the mortality risk ratio (RR) was defined as the lung cancer death rate in the LDCT versus CXR trial arms. Poisson regression was used to test for interactions of sex, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), and smoking status (current vs former) with trial arm. Mortality RRs were also computed for specific lung cancer histologies. RESULTS: The overall mortality RR was 0.92 in men and 0.73 in women, with a P value for interaction of .08. RRs were similar for individuals aged < 65 years versus those aged ≥ 65 years (0.82 vs 0.87), and for current versus former smokers (0.81 vs 0.91). By tumor histology, mortality RRs were 0.75 for adenocarcinoma, 0.71 for all non‐small cell lung cancers except squamous, 1.23 for squamous cell carcinoma, and 0.90 for small cell carcinoma. RRs were similar for men and women for nonsquamous non‐small cell lung cancers (0.71 and 0.70, respectively); women were found to have lower RRs for small cell and squamous cell carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: A benefit of LDCT did not appear to vary substantially by age or smoking status; there was weak evidence of a differential benefit by sex. A differential benefit across lung cancer histologies may exist. Cancer 2013;119:3976–3983. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.28326

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Pinsky, P. F., Church, T. R., Izmirlian, G., & Kramer, B. S.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-26
Volume
119
Issue
22
Pages
3976-3983
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1501998941
Cited by
293
References
1
FWCI
17.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: The National Lung Screening Trial: Results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.28326
The paper
Pinsky, P. F., Church, T. R., Izmirlian, G., & Kramer, B. S. (2013). The National Lung Screening Trial: Results stratified by demographics, smoking history, and lung cancer histology. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28326

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.