Prospective Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria and Lung Cancer Detection in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

The PLCO<sub>M2012</sub> ≥ 1.51% criteria identified more people eligible for screening in Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial and resulted in more screen-detected lung cancers than LLP<sub>v2</sub> ≥ 5% or USPSTF<sub>2013</sub>. When compared in equivalent populations, there was no significant difference between risk models in terms of lung cancer detection and each appeared more efficient at screening population selection than USPSTF<sub>2013</sub>.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Published
2024-12-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2024.12.016
Citations
12
Primary Topic
Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.03

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Prospective Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria and Lung Cancer Detection in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

Irene Simmonds, Rachael L Murray, Richard Booton, Catriona Marshall et al.
12 citations
Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
5.03
article

Prospective Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria and Lung Cancer Detection in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

Irene Simmonds, Rachael L Murray, Richard Booton, Catriona Marshall, Neil Hancock, Suzanne Rogerson, Rhian Gabe, Daniel Vulkan, Henrik Møller, Claire Bradley, Bethany Shinkins, Matthew Callister, Sam M. Janes, David Baldwin, Richard D Neal, Samantha L. Quaife, Philip Crosbie, Sebastian Hinde, Hannah Bailey, Claire Eckert, Sara Upperton, Michael Darby, Martyn Kennedy
article en
12 citations

Abstract

The PLCO<sub>M2012</sub> ≥ 1.51% criteria identified more people eligible for screening in Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial and resulted in more screen-detected lung cancers than LLP<sub>v2</sub> ≥ 5% or USPSTF<sub>2013</sub>. When compared in equivalent populations, there was no significant difference between risk models in terms of lung cancer detection and each appeared more efficient at screening population selection than USPSTF<sub>2013</sub>.

Journal of Thoracic OncologyVol. 20(4)
University of Leeds (GB), Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), University of Nottingham (GB), Queen Mary University of London (GB), University of Exeter (GB), Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB), University of Manchester (GB), University of Warwick (GB), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Danish Pain Research Center (DK), University College London (GB), University of York (GB)
AstraZeneca, Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Barts Charity, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Prostate Cancer UK, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute, Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
5.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.