CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,624Lung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningOccupational and environmental lung diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial

Open access
de Koning, Harry J., van der Aalst, Carlijn M., de Jong, Pim A., Scholten, Ernst T., Nackaerts, Kristiaan, Heuvelmans, Marjolein A., Lammers, Jan-Willem J., Weenink, Carla, Yousaf-Khan, Uraujh, Horeweg, Nanda, van ’t Westeinde, Susan, Prokop, Mathias, Mali, Willem P., Mohamed Hoesein, Firdaus A.A., van Ooijen, Peter M.A., Aerts, Joachim G.J.V., den Bakker, Michael A., Thunnissen, Erik, Verschakelen, Johny, Vliegenthart, Rozemarijn, Walter, Joan E., ten Haaf, Kevin, Groen, Harry J.M., Oudkerk, Matthijs·2020·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1911793
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are limited data from randomized trials regarding whether volume-based, low-dose computed tomographic (CT) screening can reduce lung-cancer mortality among male former and current smokers. METHODS: A total of 13,195 men (primary analysis) and 2594 women (subgroup analyses) between the ages of 50 and 74 were randomly assigned to undergo CT screening at T0 (baseline), year 1, year 3, and year 5.5 or no screening. We obtained data on cancer diagnosis and the date and cause of death through linkages with national registries in the Netherlands and Belgium, and a review committee confirmed lung cancer as the cause of death when possible. A minimum follow-up of 10 years until December 31, 2015, was completed for all participants. RESULTS: Among men, the average adherence to CT screening was 90.0%. On average, 9.2% of the screened participants underwent at least one additional CT scan (initially indeterminate). The overall referral rate for suspicious nodules was 2.1%. At 10 years of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 5.58 cases per 1000 person-years in the screening group and 4.91 cases per 1000 person-years in the control group; lung-cancer mortality was 2.50 deaths per 1000 person-years and 3.30 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively. The cumulative rate ratio for death from lung cancer at 10 years was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.94; P = 0.01) in the screening group as compared with the control group, similar to the values at years 8 and 9. Among women, the rate ratio was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.14) at 10 years of follow-up, with values of 0.41 to 0.52 in years 7 through 9. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving high-risk persons, lung-cancer mortality was significantly lower among those who underwent volume CT screening than among those who underwent no screening. There were low rates of follow-up procedures for results suggestive of lung cancer. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization of Health Research and Development and others; NELSON Netherlands Trial Register number, NL580.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1911793

Cites

76 of 76 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 76 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
de Koning, H. J., van der Aalst, C. M., de Jong, P. A., Scholten, E. T., Nackaerts, K., Heuvelmans, M. A., Lammers, J.-W. J., Weenink, C., Yousaf-Khan, U., Horeweg, N., van ’t Westeinde, S., Prokop, M., Mali, W. P., Mohamed Hoesein, F. A. A., van Ooijen, P. M. A., Aerts, J. G. J. V., den Bakker, M. A., Thunnissen, E., Verschakelen, J., Vliegenthart, R., Walter, J. E., ten Haaf, K., Groen, H. J. M., & Oudkerk, M.
Affiliations
  • From the Departments of Public Health (H.J.K., C.M.A., U.Y.-K., K.H.) and Pulmonology (J.G.J.V.A.), Erasmus MC–University Medical Center Rotterdam, and the Departments of Pulmonology (S.W.) and Pathology (M.A.B.), Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Departments of Radiology (P.A.J., W.P.M., F.A.A.M.H.) and Pulmonology (J.-W.J.L.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Departments of Radiology (E.T.S.) and Pulmonology (C.W.), Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, the Department of Radiation Oncology,...
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
ORCID
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2020-02-06
Volume
382
Issue
6
Pages
503-513
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejmoa1911793
OpenAlex
W3003415550
Cited by
3,624
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 538 · 2025: 626 · 2024: 568 · 2023: 588 · 2022: 532 · 2021: 492 · 2020: 275
FWCI
266.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • LOGO Leuven
  • The Netherlands Organization of Health Research and Development
  • Dutch Cancer Society
  • Health Insurance Innovation Foundation
  • Siemens Germany
  • Roche Diagnostics
  • G.Ph. Verhagen Stichting
  • Rotterdam Oncologic Study (ROTS) group
  • Erasmus Trust Fund
  • Stichting Tegen Kanker
  • Vlaamse Liga Tegen Kanker
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, smoking, men, women, screening adherence, lung cancer incidence, NELSON trial, cancer mortality reduction, follow-up procedures, cancer registry linkage, Netherlands, vulnerable populations, cost-effectiveness of screening
MeSH terms
Medical Overuse, Aged, Belgium, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Registries, Sex Factors, Smoking, Incidence, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Early Detection of Cancer

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