The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Results of the Randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with Focus on High-Risk Profiling
Abstract
RATIONALE: As of April 2015, participants in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial had been followed for at least 5 years since their last screening. OBJECTIVES: Mortality, causes of death, and lung cancer findings are reported to explore the effect of computed tomography (CT) screening. METHODS: A total of 4,104 participants aged 50-70 years at the time of inclusion and with a minimum 20 pack-years of smoking were randomized to have five annual low-dose CT scans (study group) or no screening (control group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Follow-up information regarding date and cause of death, lung cancer diagnosis, cancer stage, and histology was obtained from national registries. No differences between the two groups in lung cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.6; P = 0.888) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.27; P = 0.867) were observed. More cancers were found in the screening group than in the no-screening group (100 vs. 53, respectively; P < 0.001), particularly adenocarcinomas (58 vs. 18, respectively; P < 0.001). More early-stage cancers (stages I and II, 54 vs. 10, respectively; P < 0.001) and stage IIIa cancers (15 vs. 3, respectively; P = 0.009) were found in the screening group than in the control group. Stage IV cancers were nonsignificantly more frequent in the control group than in the screening group (32 vs. 23, respectively; P = 0.278). For the highest-stage cancers (T4N3M1, 21 vs. 8, respectively; P = 0.025), this difference was statistically significant, indicating an absolute stage shift. Older participants, those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and those with more than 35 pack-years of smoking had a significantly increased risk of death due to lung cancer, with nonsignificantly fewer deaths in the screening group. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant effects of CT screening on lung cancer mortality were found, but the results of post hoc high-risk subgroup analyses showed nonsignificant trends that seem to be in good agreement with the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00496977).
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
Cites
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102873 · Cited by 11,064
Goldstraw, P., Crowley, J., Chansky, K., Giroux, D. J., Groome, P. A., Rami-Porta, R., Postmus, P. E., Rusch, V., & Sobin, L. (2007) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1097/jto.0b013e31812f3c1a · Cited by 3,655
Conceptualizing overdiagnosis in cancer screening
Marcus, P. M., Prorok, P. C., Miller, A. B., DeVoto, E. J., & Kramer, B. S. (2015) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djv014 · Cited by 90
Cited by
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
Self-citationPastorino, U., Silva, M., Sestini, S., Sabia, F., Boeri, M., Cantarutti, A., Sverzellati, N., Sozzi, G., Corrao, G., & Marchianò, A. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz117 · Cited by 523
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
Mazzone, P. J., Silvestri, G. A., Patel, S., Kanne, J. P., Kinsinger, L. S., Wiener, R. S., Soo Hoo, G., & Detterbeck, F. C. (2018) · Chest · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.016 · Cited by 348
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Wille, M. M. W., Dirksen, A., Ashraf, H., Saghir, Z., Bach, K. S., Brodersen, J., Clementsen, P. F., Hansen, H., Larsen, K. R., Mortensen, J., Rasmussen, J. F., Seersholm, N., Skov, B. G., Thomsen, L. H., Tønnesen, P., & Pedersen, J. H.
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-03-01
- Volume
- 193
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 542-551
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W1763317605
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 20.46
- 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: Results of the Randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with Focus on High-Risk Profiling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201505-1040oc
- The paper
- Wille, M. M. W., Dirksen, A., Ashraf, H., Saghir, Z., Bach, K. S., Brodersen, J., Clementsen, P. F., Hansen, H., Larsen, K. R., Mortensen, J., Rasmussen, J. F., Seersholm, N., Skov, B. G., Thomsen, L. H., Tønnesen, P., & Pedersen, J. H. (2016). Results of the Randomized Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with Focus on High-Risk Profiling. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-1040oc
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.