Jama Oncology最新文献

{"title":"Survival in the SONIA Trial.","authors":"Hongbo Li","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1915","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1915","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"893"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148273559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prostate Imaging Standards for Screening Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PRISM): International Consensus Recommendations.","authors":"Nikhil Mayor, Alexander Light, Archana Gopalakrishnan, Emma Cullen, Francesca Rawlins, Varsha Sonigra-Patel, Natasha Thorley, Tristan Barrett, Ola Bratt, Tim Dudderidge, Mark Emberton, Francesco Giganti, Aiman Haider, Masoom A Haider, Oliver Hulson, Amish Lakhani, Caroline Moore, Tobias Nordstrom, Anwar R Padhani, Ivo G Schoots, Andrew Smith, Henry Tam, Massimo Valerio, Sadhna Verma, Samuel J Withey, Shonit Punwani, Taimur T Shah, Jan van der Meulen, Hashim U Ahmed","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1711","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1711","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is routinely used in prostate cancer diagnosis, but there is uncertainty about its optimal use in population-level screening.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide consensus recommendations on the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of prostate MRI for cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies evaluating MRI for prostate cancer screening was conducted for these international consensus recommendations. A search of PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov, citation searching, and consultation with experts was performed in September 2024. Studies performing upfront MRI for the purpose of prostate cancer screening were included.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 6 studies were identified and included 1919 participants, of whom 1426 underwent upfront screening MRI. Most studies used 3.0-T non-contrast-enhanced MRI. The pooled biopsy recommendation rate was 19.2% (95% CI, 11.7-26.7), with grade group (GG) 2 or higher prostate cancer detection of 6.0% (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) and GG1 cancer detection of 1.4% (95% CI, 0.7-2.2). The positive predictive value for GG2 or higher cancer was 36.3% (95% CI, 21.1-51.4). Findings informed a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus exercise used to produce the Prostate Imaging Standards for Screening Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PRISM) recommendations. A total of 21 experts (8 urologists, 11 radiologists, and 2 pathologists from 6 countries) were included on the panel. Among 323 consensus statements, 235 (72.8%) reached agreement. If MRI is used in screening, it is recommended for men with an estimated life expectancy greater than 10 years and aged 50 to 70 years or from age 45 years in Black men. Screening MRI should be performed in men after a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, but there was no consensus on the optimal PSA threshold. Non-contrast-enhanced MRI with only T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging was considered appropriate, with a maximum acceptable acquisition time of 15 minutes. The stage-gated (2-step) approach to reporting, where all MRI sequences are only revealed (second step) if a concordant focal lesion is identified on axial T2-weighted and high b-value diffusion imaging (first step), was recommended. Repeat screening should be risk stratified according to patient characteristics. Screening MRI should only be performed in accredited centers with radiologists meeting minimum reporting requirements and quality standards.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The PRISM consensus recommendations provide standardized expert guidance on the use of MRI in prostate cancer screening trials and future screening programs, including abbreviated non-contrast-enhanced MRI protocols, recommended screening intervals, stage-gated reporting, and quality assurance standards.<","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"881-889"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148220319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fluids for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Diabetic Ketoacidosis-Reply.","authors":"Zoe Quandt, Megan Othus, Elad Sharon","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1589","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1589","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"892-893"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148158646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Second Primary Malignant Neoplasms After T-Cell-Engaging Bispecific Antibody Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Jaromir Tomasik, Tobias Tix, Mohammad Alhomoud, Samuel Yamshon, Edward R S Cliff, Gloria Iacoboni, David M Cordas Dos Santos, Maximilian Merz, Marion Subklewe, Anat Gafter-Gvili, Saad Z Usmani, Gilles Salles, Miguel-Angel Perales, Grzegorz W Basak, Kai Rejeski, Roni Shouval","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1859","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1859","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>T-cell-engaging bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are increasingly used in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM). As these agents transition into earlier courses of therapy and broader clinical use, understanding their safety profile is critical. While second primary malignant neoplasms (SPMs) represent a key long-term safety signal, small sample sizes, single-arm trials, short follow-up, and heterogeneous reporting have limited reliable estimation of their frequency.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the frequency of reported SPMs after BsAb therapy and evaluate whether study-level characteristics and reporting definitions influence observed estimates.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed and Embase were searched from inception through October 1, 2025, following a prespecified protocol registered in PROSPERO.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Clinical trials and real-world studies of BsAbs in adults with NHL or MM reporting SPM outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Data were extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Pooled SPM frequencies were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis of single proportions.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Reported SPM occurrence during available follow-up was categorized as (1) total SPMs reported, (2) SPMs leading to treatment discontinuation, and (3) SPMs leading to death.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 494 records, 20 studies (26 cohorts; 2551 patients) met inclusion criteria. Among 8 studies (10 cohorts; 1003 patients) reporting total SPMs, random-effects meta-analysis yielded a pooled estimated proportion of 3.5% (95% CI, 1.8-6.9) at a median (range) follow-up of 17.4 (5.7-25.6) months. Disease-specific estimates were 3.8% (95% CI, 2.3-6.3) for NHL and 3.4% (95% CI, 0-76.7) for MM. A total of 6 studies (8 cohorts; 748 patients) reporting SPMs leading to treatment discontinuation showed a pooled estimate of 2.2% (95% CI, 1.5-3.1). A total of 19 studies (24 cohorts; 2330 patients) reporting SPMs leading to death yielded a pooled estimate of 1.4% (95% CI, 1.1-1.9). In exploratory meta-regression analyses of prespecified study-level covariates (follow-up duration, disease category, prior therapy courses, and age), no variables were associated with total SPM estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, despite relatively short follow-up, SPMs were a measurable and clinically relevant complication of BsAb therapy. Heterogeneous and inconsistent reporting currently complicates their comprehensive assessment, highlighting the need for standardized long-term safety surveillance in clinical trials examining BsAbs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"828-835"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13280766/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148273509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Caution in Interpreting Survival After for Salvage Focal Therapy vs Salvage Radical Prostatectomy.","authors":"Avi S Baskin, Michael A Daneshvar","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1450","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1450","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"789-790"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147983892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Should Risk of Bias Be Assessed at the Outcome Level?","authors":"Ming Liu, Ya Gao, Liang Yao","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1484","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1484","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"792"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148044239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intraperitoneal and Intravenous Paclitaxel Plus S-1 for Gastric Cancer With Peritoneal Metastasis: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Chao Yan, Zhongyin Yang, Zheng Shi, Sheng Lu, Min Shi, Mingming Nie, Jian Chen, Dan Wu, Yiping Mou, Yunyun Xu, Yanong Wang, Xiaowen Liu, Hui Cao, Jiayi Gu, Jiren Yu, Kai Liu, Xinchun Liu, Jun Zhang, Kai Yin, Zhenggang Zhu","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1347","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1347","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Importance: &lt;/strong&gt;Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis has a poor prognosis, and survival with commonly used regimens, such as intravenous paclitaxel plus S-1 (an oral fluoropyrimidine), remains limited. Whether intraperitoneal paclitaxel, which achieves high drug concentrations in the peritoneal cavity, can improve survival has not been established in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;To determine whether adding intraperitoneal paclitaxel to intravenous paclitaxel plus S-1 improves overall survival in gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design, setting, and participants: &lt;/strong&gt;This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 superiority clinical trial (DRAGON-01) was conducted in 9 hospitals in China. Enrollment went from May 2017 to March 2022, and the data cutoff was March 11, 2025. The trial included adults with gastric adenocarcinoma and laparoscopically confirmed peritoneal metastasis without extraperitoneal metastases or prior systemic therapy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interventions: &lt;/strong&gt;The IP group received paclitaxel, 50 mg/m2, intravenously plus 20 mg/m2, intraperitoneally on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle, with oral S-1, 80 mg/m2, once per day on days 1 to 14. The PS group received paclitaxel, 70 mg/m2, intravenously on days 1 and 8, with S-1 80, mg/m2, once per day on days 1 to 14.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main outcomes and measures: &lt;/strong&gt;The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Among 222 treated patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [48-66] years; 104 [46.8%] female individuals and 118 [53.2%] male individuals), median (IQR) follow-up was 72.2 (50.8-80.2) months. Of 246 who were assessed, 238 (96.7%) were randomized 2:1 to receive intraperitoneal and intravenous paclitaxel plus oral S-1 (IP group) or intravenous paclitaxel plus S-1 (PS group); 222 (90.2%) received treatment (primary analysis). Median overall survival was 19.4 months (95% CI, 17.1-22.9) in the IP group and 13.9 months (95% CI, 10.3-16.1) in the PS group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P = .01). Median progression-free survival was 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.3-14.0) vs 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.7-11.6) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 57 (38.5%) in the IP group and 31 (41.9%) in the PS group; no treatment-related deaths occurred.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions and relevance: &lt;/strong&gt;The results of this randomized clinical trial of patients with gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis suggest that adding intraperitoneal paclitaxel to intravenous paclitaxel plus S-1 significantly improved overall survival without increasing severe toxic effects, potentially providing an encouraging signal for IP therapy in first-line treatment of gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Trial registration: &lt;/strong&gt;chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR-IIR-16009802.&lt;/","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"732-740"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13195509/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147983896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Caution in Interpreting Survival After for Salvage Focal Therapy vs Salvage Radical Prostatectomy-Reply.","authors":"Alexander Light, Hashim U Ahmed, Taimur T Shah","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1456","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1456","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"791-792"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147983894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rates of Systemic Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Among Older Adults.","authors":"Adam H Fox, Ralph C Ward, Mariam Alexander, Raymond U Osarogiagbon, Robert A Smith, Jamie L Studts, Gerard A Silvestri","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1080","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1080","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Importance: &lt;/strong&gt;Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) has very high mortality rates, and comprises approximately half of new cases of lung cancer; however, highly effective and better tolerated treatments have become available in recent decades. Nevertheless, population-level treatment of mNSCLC is poorly characterized in the era of rapid treatment advances.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;To characterize treatment rates, trends, and factors associated with treatment of mNSCLC.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design, setting, and participants: &lt;/strong&gt;This population-based study used linked Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) and Medicare claims data and the analysis included patients 65 years and older diagnosed with mNSCLC from January 2006 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from October 2025 to February 2026.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Exposures: &lt;/strong&gt;Sociodemographic variables, comorbidity burden, histologic type, referral to subspecialist, enrollment in Medicare Part D, and biomarker testing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;The primary outcome was receipt of systemic treatment. Statistical analyses included summary statistics and a competing risk proportional hazards model for receipt of systemic treatment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Of 254 611 patients with mNSCLC, the cohort median (IQR) age was 73 (68-80) years, with 133 635 (52.5%) male individuals; a total of 9512 (3.7%) were Asian, 26 546 (10.4%) were Black, 4553 (1.8%) were Hispanic, 205 381 (80.7%) were White, and 8619 (3.4%) were another or unknown race. A total of 119 197 patients (46.8%) ever received systemic treatment. Of the 100 367 (39.8%) who died within 90 days of diagnosis, 13.2% were treated compared with 69% of those surviving more than 90 days. The treated proportion increased only slightly between 2006 and 2021. In a competing risk model, referral to oncology specialists was associated with treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; 95% CI, 2.41-2.67; P &lt; .001) which corresponded to a 30.3% greater cumulative incidence of treatment at 180 days (CIF180) compared with those without a referral. Similarly, those with biomarker testing had a 17.8% greater CIF180, whereas those older than 80 years had a 15.4% lower CIF180 compared to those aged 65 to 69 years. Patients with NSCLC not otherwise specified histologic findings had a 12.8% lower CIF180 compared with those with adenocarcinoma histologic findings. Other factors associated with significant but smaller differences in receipt of treatment included comorbidity burden, marital status, Medicare Part C or Part D coverage, rurality, and race and ethnicity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions and relevance: &lt;/strong&gt;In this cohort study of older adults with mNSCLC, despite advances in therapy in recent decades, almost half of patients never received systemic therapy, and the proportion treated only minimally improved over time. Approximately one-fifth of those with the most favorable clinical profiles did not receiv","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"705-713"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13154025/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147844756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Temporal Trends in Lung Cancer Cases Diagnosed at Early Stage.","authors":"S Jane Henley, Emily E Adam, Christine M Kava, Manxia Wu","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1199","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1199","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Since December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended lung cancer screening for adults at high risk of developing lung cancer because of their age and smoking history. Increased uptake in lung cancer screening may be reflected in changes in the stage at which lung cancer is diagnosed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the percentage of lung cancer cases diagnosed at an early stage, visualizing temporal patterns with heat maps.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This descriptive surveillance study used US Cancer Statistics incidence data to identify US adults who were diagnosed with malignant lung cancer from 2003 to 2022. Data were analyzed from November 14 to November 30, 2025.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at early stage, stratified by year of diagnosis, age at diagnosis, and state of residence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2003 to 2022, 4 363 687 new lung cancer cases were reported in the US. The percentage diagnosed at early stage increased slowly from 17.6% (95% CI, 17.5%-17.8%) in 2003 to 20.2% (95% CI, 20.0%-20.4%) in 2014, increased sharply from 21.4% (95% CI, 21.2%-21.6%) in 2015 to 24.6% (95% CI, 24.4%-24.8%) in 2016, then increased steadily to 30.1% (95% CI, 29.9%-30.3%) in 2022. The percentage diagnosed at early stage increased in all states, beginning around 2016 in most states. In 2003, the percentage diagnosed at early stage ranged from 11.2% (95% CI, 8.5%-14.6%) to 24.0% (95% CI, 22.7%-25.4%); by 2022, this range was 22.0% (95% CI, 18.9%-25.5%) to 40.2% (95% CI, 36.7%-43.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This descriptive surveillance study showed that since lung cancer screening was recommended in 2013, more people with lung cancer are being diagnosed early, when treatment is more effective and more treatment options are available. Population-based survey data indicate that fewer than 1 in 5 eligible persons reported being up to date with lung cancer screening in 2024. Strengthening awareness about the benefits of lung cancer screening and supporting uptake remain important strategies for cancer prevention and control.</p>","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"762-766"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13177193/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147943244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}