Cited by 230Lung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningOccupational and environmental lung diseases

Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis

Open access
Field, John K., Vulkan, Daniel, Davies, Michael P.A., Baldwin, David R., Brain, Kate E., Devaraj, Anand, Eisen, Tim, Gosney, John +20 more·2021·The Lancet Regional Health - Europe

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The NLST reported a significant 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with three annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screens and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial indicates a similar reduction. We present the results of the UKLS trial. METHODS: From October 2011 to February 2013, we randomly allocated 4 055 participants to either a single invitation to screening with LDCT or to no screening (usual care). Eligible participants (aged 50-75) had a risk score (LLPv2) ≥ 4.5% of developing lung cancer over five years. Data were collected on lung cancer cases to 31 December 2019 and deaths to 29 February 2020 through linkage to national registries. The primary outcome was mortality due to lung cancer. We included our results in a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the latest randomised trial evidence. FINDINGS: 1 987 participants in the intervention and 1 981 in the usual care arms were followed for a median of 7.3 years (IQR 7.1-7.6), 86 cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT arm and 75 in the control arm. 30 lung cancer deaths were reported in the screening arm, 46 in the control arm, (relative rate 0.65 [95% CI 0.41-1.02]; p=0.062). The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a pooled overall relative rate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) from nine eligible trials. INTERPRETATION: The UKLS trial of single LDCT indicates a reduction of lung cancer death of similar magnitude to the NELSON and NLST trials and was included in a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials which provides unequivocal support for lung cancer screening in identified risk groups. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

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 · 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100179

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Field, J. K., Vulkan, D., Davies, M. P. A., Baldwin, D. R., Brain, K. E., Devaraj, A., Eisen, T., Gosney, J., Green, B. A., Holemans, J. A., Kavanagh, T., Kerr, K. M., Ledson, M., Lifford, K. J., McRonald, F. E., Nair, A., Page, R. D., Parmar, M. K. B., Rassl, D. M., Rintoul, R. C., Screaton, N. J., Wald, N. J., Weller, D., Whynes, D. K., Williamson, P. R., Yadegarfar, G., Gabe, R., & Duffy, S. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Royal Brompton Hospital (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital (GB)
  • Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • Royal London Hospital (GB)
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
  • Royal Papworth Hospital (GB)
  • Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Field, John K.
Venue
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
10
Pages
100179
ISSN
2666-7762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199475400
Cited by
230
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 5
FWCI
23.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Regional Health - Europe (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation
  • National Institute for Health Research (PR-PRU-1217-21601)
  • Health Technology Assessment Programme
  • NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
  • Public Health England
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
Keywords
lung cancer screening, low-dose CT, lung cancer mortality, National Lung Screening Trial, NELSON trial

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