- •The diagnostic accuracy of the CXR in detecting symptomatic lung cancer.
- •A positive CXR strongly increases the probability of lung cancer being present.
- •A negative CXR leads to a limited reduction of the probability of lung cancer.
- •The findings allow the risk of lung cancer following a negative test to be estimated.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer, Suspected Cancer: Recognition and Referral - PubMed - NCBI, NICE Guidel. (2015) 1–378. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26180880%5Cnhttps://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12/evidence/full-guidance-74333341.
- Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice.Chest. 1999; 115: 720-724https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.115.3.720
- Chest radiographs and the elusive lung cancer.Digit. Med. 2016; 2: 120https://doi.org/10.4103/2226-8561.194700
- Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: A systematic review.Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2019; https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X706853
- Lung cancer stage-shift following a symptom awareness campaign.Thorax. 2018; 73: 1128-1136https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-211842
- Estimating lung cancer risk from chest X-ray and symptoms: a prospective cohort study.Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2020; (bjgp20X713993)https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20x713993
- STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.Radiology. 2015; 277: 826-832https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151516
- Stage at diagnosis and early mortality from cancer in England.Br. J. Cancer. 2015; 112: S108-S115https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.49
- Lung cancer detectability by test, histology, stage, and gender: Estimates from the NLST and the PLCO trials.Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2015; 24: 154-161https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0745
- British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: Update 2009.Thorax. 2009; 64: 1-17https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2009.121434
- Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial.JAMA - J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2011; 306: 1865-1873https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1591
- Limitation of annual screening chest radiography for the diagnosis of lung cancer. A retrospective study.Cancer. 1993; 72: 2341-2346https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19931015)72:8<2341::AID-CNCR2820720809>3.0.CO;2-A
- Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.JAMA Intern. Med. 2014; 174: 269https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12738
- Sojourn time and lead time projection in lung cancer screening.Lung Cancer. 2011; 72: 322-326https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.10.010
- Final screening round of the NELSON lung cancer screening trial: The effect of a 2.5-year screening interval.Thorax. 2017; 72: 48-56https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208655
- Diagnostic Accuracy Measures. 2013; : 267-272https://doi.org/10.1159/000353863
- Statistics notes - Diagnostic tests 4: Likelihood ratios.Br. Med. J. 2004; 329: 168-169https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7458.168
- Using socio-demographic and early clinical features in general practice to identify people with lung cancer earlier.Thorax. 2013; 68: 451-459https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202348
- Symptoms and risk factors to identify women with suspected cancer in primary care: Derivation and validation of an algorithm.Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2013; 63: 715-723https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660733
- Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning in medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Npj Digit. Med. 2021; 4https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00438-z
S. Schalekamp, M.J.C.M. Rutten, Artificial intelligence in radiology : 100 commercially available products and their scientific evidence, European Congress of Radiology, (2021).
- The effect of direct referral for fast CT scan in early lung cancer detection in general practice. A clinical, cluster-randomised trial.Dan. Med. J. 2015; 62: B5027
- Comparison of digital tomosynthesis and chest radiography for the detection of pulmonary nodules: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Br. J. Radiol. 2016; 89https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160421