The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Risks at Which to Screen Ever- and Never-Smokers: Screening Rules Applied to the PLCO and NLST Cohorts
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer risks at which individuals should be screened with computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer are undecided. This study's objectives are to identify a risk threshold for selecting individuals for screening, to compare its efficiency with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for identifying screenees, and to determine whether never-smokers should be screened. Lung cancer risks are compared between smokers aged 55-64 and ≥ 65-80 y. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Applying the PLCO(m2012) model, a model based on 6-y lung cancer incidence, we identified the risk threshold above which National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, n = 53,452) CT arm lung cancer mortality rates were consistently lower than rates in the chest X-ray (CXR) arm. We evaluated the USPSTF and PLCO(m2012) risk criteria in intervention arm (CXR) smokers (n = 37,327) of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). The numbers of smokers selected for screening, and the sensitivities, specificities, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for identifying lung cancers were assessed. A modified model (PLCOall2014) evaluated risks in never-smokers. At PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151, the 65th percentile of risk, the NLST CT arm mortality rates are consistently below the CXR arm's rates. The number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death in the 65th to 100th percentile risk group is 255 (95% CI 143 to 1,184), and in the 30th to <65th percentile risk group is 963 (95% CI 291 to -754); the number needed to screen could not be estimated in the <30th percentile risk group because of absence of lung cancer deaths. When applied to PLCO intervention arm smokers, compared to the USPSTF criteria, the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 threshold selected 8.8% fewer individuals for screening (p<0.001) but identified 12.4% more lung cancers (sensitivity 80.1% [95% CI 76.8%-83.0%] versus 71.2% [95% CI 67.6%-74.6%], p<0.001), had fewer false-positives (specificity 66.2% [95% CI 65.7%-66.7%] versus 62.7% [95% CI 62.2%-63.1%], p<0.001), and had higher PPV (4.2% [95% CI 3.9%-4.6%] versus 3.4% [95% CI 3.1%-3.7%], p<0.001). In total, 26% of individuals selected for screening based on USPSTF criteria had risks below the threshold PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Of PLCO former smokers with quit time >15 y, 8.5% had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. None of 65,711 PLCO never-smokers had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Risks and lung cancers were significantly greater in PLCO smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y than in those aged 55-64 y. This study omitted cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF criteria for CT screening include some low-risk individuals and exclude some high-risk individuals. Use of the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 criterion can improve screening efficiency. Currently, never-smokers should not be screened. Smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y are a high-risk group who may benefit from screening. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
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
Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis
Silverman, B. W. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315140919 · Cited by 15,796
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
Harrell, F. E. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1 · Cited by 9,195
Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion
Brown, L. D., Cai, T. T., & DasGupta, A. (2001) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009213286 · Cited by 3,538
Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Moyer, V. A., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2014) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m13-2771 · Cited by 2,632
A wilcoxon‐type test for trend
Cuzick, J. (1985) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780040112 · Cited by 1,900
RE: “ESTIMABILITY AND ESTIMATION IN CASE-REFERENT STUDIES”
Halperin, M. (1977) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112409 · Cited by 1,542
Probability of Cancer in Pulmonary Nodules Detected on First Screening CT
McWilliams, A., Tammemagi, M. C., Mayo, J. R., Roberts, H., Liu, G., Soghrati, K., Yasufuku, K., Martel, S., Laberge, F., Gingras, M., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1214726 · Cited by 1,414
Self-citationESTIMABILITY AND ESTIMATION IN CASE-REFERENT STUDIES
MIETTINEN, O. (1976) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112220 · Cited by 1,321
The National Lung Screening Trial: Overview and Study Design
National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.10091808 · Cited by 1,274
Cited by
Cancer Progress and Priorities: Lung Cancer
Schabath, M. B., & Cote, M. L. (2019) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-19-0221 · Cited by 1,160
Progress and prospects of early detection in lung cancer
Blandin Knight, S., Crosbie, P. A., Balata, H., Chudziak, J., Hussell, T., & Dive, C. (2017) · Open Biology · doi:10.1098/rsob.170070 · Cited by 935
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
Self-citationA Comparative Performance Analysis of Data Resampling Methods on Imbalance Medical Data
Khushi, M., Shaukat, K., Alam, T. M., Hameed, I. A., Uddin, S., Luo, S., Yang, X., & Reyes, M. C. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3102399 · Cited by 335
Scientific Advances in Lung Cancer 2015
Tsao, A. S., Scagliotti, G. V., Bunn, P. A., Carbone, D. P., Warren, G. W., Bai, C., de Koning, H. J., Yousaf-Khan, A. U., McWilliams, A., Tsao, M. S., et al. (2016) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2016.03.012 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- Tammemägi, M. C., Church, T. R., Hocking, W. G., Silvestri, G. A., Kvale, P. A., Riley, T. L., Commins, J., & Berg, C. D.
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-12-02
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e1001764
- ISSN
- 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-1676
- OpenAlex
- W2029944316
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 17.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Risks at Which to Screen Ever- and Never-Smokers: Screening Rules Applied to the PLCO and NLST Cohorts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001764
- The paper
- Tammemägi, M. C., Church, T. R., Hocking, W. G., Silvestri, G. A., Kvale, P. A., Riley, T. L., Commins, J., & Berg, C. D. (2014). Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Risks at Which to Screen Ever- and Never-Smokers: Screening Rules Applied to the PLCO and NLST Cohorts. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001764
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.