The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Lung Cancer Mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: Impact of Extended Follow-up
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Mayo Lung Project (MLP) was a randomized, controlled clinical trial of lung cancer screening that was conducted in 9211 male smokers between 1971 and 1983. The intervention arm was offered chest x-ray and sputum cytology every 4 months for 6 years; the usual-care arm was advised at trial entry to receive the same tests annually. No lung cancer mortality benefit was evident at the end of the study. We have extended follow-up through 1996. METHODS: A National Death Index-PLUS search was used to assign vital status and date and cause of death for 6523 participants with unknown information. The median survival for lung cancer patients diagnosed before July 1, 1983, was calculated by use of Kaplan-Meier estimates. Survival curves were compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 20.5 years. Lung cancer mortality was 4.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.9-4.9) deaths per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 3.9 (95% CI = 3.5-4.4) in the usual-care arm (two-sided P: for difference =.09). For participants diagnosed with lung cancer before July 1, 1983, survival was better in the intervention arm (two-sided P: =.0039). The median survival for patients with resected early-stage disease was 16.0 years in the intervention arm versus 5.0 years in the usual-care arm. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up of MLP participants did not reveal a lung cancer mortality reduction for the intervention arm. Similar mortality but better survival for individuals in the intervention arm indicates that some lesions with limited clinical relevance may have been identified in the intervention arm.
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
Overdiagnosis in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer
Patz, E. F., Pinsky, P., Gatsonis, C., Sicks, J. D., Kramer, B. S., Tammemägi, M. C., Chiles, C., Black, W. C., & Aberle, D. R. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12738 · Cited by 776
European position statement on lung cancer screening
Oudkerk, M., Devaraj, A., Vliegenthart, R., Henzler, T., Prosch, H., Heussel, C. P., Bastarrika, G., Sverzellati, N., Mascalchi, M., Delorme, S., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30861-6 · Cited by 587
Adams, S. J., Stone, E., Baldwin, D. R., Vliegenthart, R., Lee, P., & Fintelmann, F. J. (2023) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01694-4 · Cited by 467
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., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Regional Health - Europe · doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100179 · Cited by 230
The importance of long-term follow up of participants in clinical trials
Cuzick, J. (2023) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-022-02038-4 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Marcus, P. M., Bergstralh, E. J., Fagerstrom, R. M., Williams, D. E., Fontana, R., Taylor, W. F., & Prorok, P. C.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-08-16
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1308-1316
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2045614352
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.62
- 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: Lung Cancer Mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: Impact of Extended Follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/92.16.1308
- The paper
- Marcus, P. M., Bergstralh, E. J., Fagerstrom, R. M., Williams, D. E., Fontana, R., Taylor, W. F., & Prorok, P. C. (2000). Lung Cancer Mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: Impact of Extended Follow-up. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.16.1308
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.