Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2327363.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.27363.

Estimating Pack-Year Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Using 2 Yes or No Questions

Katharine A Rendle  1   2 , Jennifer P Steltz  2   3 , Sarah Cohen  1   2 , Marilyn M Schapira  4 , Richard C Wender  1 , Justin E Bekelman  2   5 , Anil Vachani  2   3   6
Affiliations

Estimating Pack-Year Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Using 2 Yes or No Questions

Katharine A Rendle et al. JAMA Netw Open. .
No abstract available

Plain language summary

This cross-sectional study describes the development and testing the accuracy of using 2 yes or no questions to estimate pack-year eligibility for lung cancer screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Rendle reported receiving and grants from Pfizer and AstraZeneca paid to her institution, personal fees from Merck for serving as a scientific consultant, and honoraria and travel paid as invited speaker from MJH Life Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr Schapira reported receiving nonfinancial support from University of Pennsylvania outside the submitted work. Dr Bekelman reported receiving personal fees from United Healthcare, Reimagine Care, Healthcare Foundry, and AstraZeneca; and grants from Loxo@Lilly, Gilead, and Emerson Collective outside the submitted work. Dr Vachani reported receiving grants from MagArray Inc, Precyte Inc, Optellum Ltd, Lungevity Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and grants from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network; and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson, outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

References

    1. Field JK, Vulkan D, Davies MPA, et al. . Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021;10:100179. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100179 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fedewa SA, Kazerooni EA, Studts JL, et al. . State variation in low-dose computed tomography scanning for lung cancer screening in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(8):1044-1052. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa170 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sakoda LC, Rivera MP, Zhang J, et al. . Patterns and factors associated with adherence to lung cancer screening in diverse practice settings. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e218559. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.8559 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kukhareva PV, Caverly TJ, Li H, et al. . Inaccuracies in electronic health records smoking data and a potential approach to address resulting underestimation in determining lung cancer screening eligibility. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(5):779-788. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac020 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Millar M, Dillman D. Do mail and internet surveys produce different item nonresponse rates? an experiment using random mode assignment. Surv Pract. 2012;5(2):1-7. doi:10.29115/SP-2012-0011 - DOI

Publication types

Associated data