Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Do we know enough about the effect of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer on mortality to act? An updated systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials 2017 to 2021

Study/country

Recruitment time

Screening programme

Comparator

Size (n)

Age (yrs)

Gender (% male)

Entry

Number of screening rounds

Screening times and interval (yrs)

Duration of follow-up (mean/ median)

Direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis – RCTs of LDCT screening

 DANTE [39]

Italy

03/2001 to 02/2006

LDCT, medical exam and one CXR

No screening, medical exam and one CXR

2811

60–74

100

Volunteers

Smokers & ex-smokers

5 vs 0

T0, T1, T2, T3, T4

At 12/2012, median 6 yrs 3.5 months

 DLCST [41] Denmark

10/2004 to 03/2006

LDCT

No screening

4104

50–70

55

Volunteers

Smokers & ex-smokers

5 vs 0

T0, T1, T2, T3, T4

At 4/2015, median 9.8 yrs both arms

 ITALUNG [43]

Italy

01/2004 to 12/2006

LDCT, smoking cessation programme

No screening, smoking cessation programme

3206

55–59

65

Volunteers

Smokers & ex-smokers

4 vs 0

T0, T1, T2, T3

At 12/2014, median 9.3 yrs

At 10/2019 a, median 11.3 yrs

 LSS [44]

USA

Randomised 9/2000 to 01/2001

LDCT

CXR

3318

55–74

59

Volunteers

Smokers and ex-smokers

2 vs 2

T0, T1

At 12/2005, median 5.2 yrs both groups

 LUSI [45]

Germany

09/2007 to 04/2011

LDCT, smoking counselling

No screening, smoking counselling

4052

50–69

65

Volunteers

Smokers and ex-smokers

5 vs 0

T0, T1, T2, T3, T4

At 04/2018, mean 8.8 yrs overall

 MILD [36, 46]

Italy

09/2005 to 09/2011

LDCT (annual and biannual), smoking cessation, pulmonary function test, blood sample

No screening, smoking cessation, pulmonary function test, blood sample

4099

 > 49

66

Volunteers

Smokers and ex-smokers

7 or 4 vs 0

T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6

vs

T0, T2, T4, T6 b

At 01/2011, median 4.4 years, both arms

At 06/2018, “10 year results”

 NELSON [47, 48]

The Netherlands & Belgium

07/2003 to 12/2006

LDCT

No screening

15,822

50–75

84

Volunteers

Smokers and ex-smokers

4 vs 0

T0, T1, T3, T5.5

At 12/2015, “minimum follow-up of 10 years”

 NLST [49,50,51]

USA

08/2002 to 04/2004

LDCT

CXR

53,454

55–74

59

Volunteers

Smokers and ex-smokers

3 vs 3

T0, T1, T2

At 12/2009, median 6.5 yrs both groups

At 07/2018 a, median 12.3 yrs

 UKLS [35, 52]

UK

10/2011 to 02/2013

LDCT

No screening

3968

50–75

75

Volunteers

High risk based on LLPv2

1 vs 0

T0

At September 2021: median 7.3 years

Network meta-analysis (main)—RCTs of CXR screening

 Czech [56, 57]

Czech republic

06/1976 to 06/1977

Intensive CXR, sputum cytology

Single CXR, sputum cytology

6346

40–64

100

Non-volunteers

Smokers

6 vs 1

T0, T0.5, T1, T1.5, T2, T2.5, T3 vs T0, T3

Further follow-up CXRs (no sputum) T4, T5,T6 in both arms

At 6/2000 a, “Year 15 since enrollment”

 MAYO [59, 60]

USA

11/1971 to 07/1976

Intensive CXR, sputum cytology

Usual care (recommended an annual CXR and sputum cytology)

9211

 > 45

100

Non-volunteers

Smokers

18 vs unknown

T0.3, T0,7, T1, T1.3, T1.7, T2.0, T 2.3, T2.7, T3, T3.3, T3.7, T4, T4.3, T4.7, T5, T5.3, T5.7, T 6 (4 monthly) vs unknown

At 12/1996, median 20.5 yrs

Network meta-analysis (sensitivity)—RCTs of CXR screening (post hoc defined high-risk sub-group of larger RCT)

 PLCO [62]

USA

1993 to 2001

CXR

No screening

154,901

(30,321 NLST eligible subgroup)

55–74

61

Volunteers

Smokers and ex-smokers

4 vs 0

T0, T1, T2, T3

At 12/2009, 6 yrs all participants NLST eligible subgroup. 13 yrs results “similar”

  1. Abbreviations: CXR chest X-ray, LDCT low-dose computed tomography, RCT randomised controlled trial, N not reported, yrs years
  2. aSubmission date of article reporting results
  3. bBased on median duration of screening of 6.2 years