scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iakovos Toumazis ◽  
Emily B Tsai ◽  
S Ayca Erdogan ◽  
Summer S Han ◽  
Wenshuai Wan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Numerous health policy organizations recommend lung cancer screening, but no consensus exists on the optimal policy. Moreover, the impact of the Lung CT screening reporting and data system guidelines to manage small pulmonary nodules of unknown significance (a.k.a. indeterminate nodules) on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is not well established. Methods We assess the cost-effectiveness of 199 screening strategies that vary in terms of age and smoking eligibility criteria, using a microsimulation model. We simulate lung cancer-related events throughout the lifetime of US-representative current and former smokers. We conduct sensitivity analyses to test key model inputs and assumptions. Results The cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier consists of both annual and biennial screening strategies. Current guidelines are not on the frontier. Assuming 4% disutility associated with indeterminate findings, biennial screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 40 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy using $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold yielding the highest health benefit. Among all health utilities, the cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to changes in the disutility of indeterminate findings. As the disutility of indeterminate findings decreases, screening eligibility criteria become less stringent and eventually annual screening for smokers aged 50–70 years with at least 30 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy yielding the highest health benefit. Conclusions The disutility associated with indeterminate findings impacts the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. Efforts to quantify and better understand the impact of indeterminate findings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening are warranted.

scholarly journals Determining cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in urban Chinese populations using a state-transition Markov model

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e046742
Author(s):  
Chengyao Sun ◽  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Sirou Guo ◽  
Yang Liu ◽  
Liangru Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Initial Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesThis study analyses the cost-effectiveness of annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening of high-risk cancer populations in Chinese urban areas.DesignWe used a Markov model to evaluate LDCT screening from a sociological perspective.SettingThe data from two large lung cancer screening programmes in China were used.ParticipantsThe sample consisted of 100 000 smokers who underwent annual LDCT screening until age 76.InterventionThe study comprises five screening strategies, with the initial screening ages in both the screening strategies and their corresponding non-screening strategies being 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 years, respectively.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between screening and non-screening strategies at the same initial age was evaluated.ResultsIn the baseline scenario, compared with those who were not screened, the specific mortality from lung cancer decreased by 18.52%–23.13% among those who underwent screening. The ICER of LDCT screening ranges from US$13 056.82 to US$15 736.06 per quality-adjusted life year, which is greater than one but less than three times the gross domestic product per capita in China. An initial screening age of 55 years is the most cost-effective strategy.ConclusionsBaseline analysis shows that annual LDCT screening of heavy smokers in Chinese urban areas is likely to be cost-effective. The sensitivity analysis reveals that sensitivity, specificity and the overdiagnosis rate influence the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening. All scenarios tested demonstrate cost-effectiveness, except for the combination of worst values of sensitivity, specificity and overdiagnosis. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy depends on the performance of LDCT screenings.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance Scanning Strategies after Curative Treatment of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2020 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2097816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henri B. Wolff ◽  
Leonie Alberts ◽  
Elisabeth A. Kastelijn ◽  
Sherif Y. El Sharouni ◽  
Franz M. N. H. Schramel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Curative Treatment ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Discounted Costs ◽  
The Impact

Background After curative treatment of primary non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients undergo intensive surveillance with the aim to detect recurrences from the primary tumor or metachronous second primary lung cancer as early as possible and improve overall survival. However, the benefit of surveillance is debated. Available evidence is of low quality and conflicting. Microsimulation modeling facilitates the exploration of the impact of different surveillance strategies and provides insight into the cost-effectiveness of surveillance. Methods A microsimulation model was used to simulate a range of computed tomography (CT)–based surveillance schedules, differing in the frequency and duration of CT surveillance. The impact on survival, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of each schedule was assessed. Results Ten of 108 strategies formed the cost-effectiveness frontier; that is, these were the strategies with the optimal cost-health benefit balance. Per person, the discounted QALYs of these strategies varied between 5.72 and 5.81 years, and discounted costs varied between €9892 and €19,259. Below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, no scanning is the preferred option. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY, surveillance scanning every 2 y starting 1 y after curative treatment becomes the best option, with €11,860 discounted costs and 5.76 discounted QALYs per person. The European Society for Medical Oncology guideline strategy was more expensive and less effective than several other strategies. Conclusion Model simulations suggest that limited CT surveillance scanning after the treatment of primary NSCLC is cost-effective, but the incremental health-benefit remains marginal. However, model simulations do suggest that the guideline strategy is not cost-effective.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening in Urban Chinese Populations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengyao Sun ◽  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Sirou Guo ◽  
Yang Liu ◽  
Liangru Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Initial Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Diagnosis Rate ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death. Currently, lung cancer screening trials have demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer specific and overall mortality. The effectiveness of LDCT has been proven, but its economical efficiency should also be assessed. The purpose of the study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of annual LDCT screening of high-risk populations in Chinese urban areas.Method: We use Markov model to evaluate LDCT screening from sociological perspective. The sample size is 100,000 smokers who will undergo annual LDCT screening until 76. The study contains 5 screening strategies, the initial screening ages for the five screening strategies and their corresponding unscreened strategies are 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 years, respectively. Parameters come from the China Lung Cancer Screening Project, cancer registry data, etc. The Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) between screening and non-screening strategies at the same initial age is evaluated.Result: In base-case scenario, compared with those who are not screened, specific mortality of lung cancer decreased by 18.52%-23.13% of 5 screening strategies. The ICER of LDCT screening is from 13056.82USD to 15736.06USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which is greater than one time and less than three times GDP per capita in China. Initial screening age of 55 is the most cost-effective strategy.Conclusion: Baseline analysis shows that annual LDCT screening in heavy smokers in Chinese urban areas is likely to be cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis shows that sensitivity, specificity and over-diagnosis rate have an impact on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, but the results are relatively robust，unless the sensitivity, specificity of LDCT screening and over-diagnosis rate take the worst value at the same time. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of screening strategy depends on the performance of LDCT screening.

scholarly journals A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography and a Diagnostic Biomarker

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iakovos Toumazis ◽  
S Ayca Erdogan ◽  
Mehrad Bastani ◽  
Ann Leung ◽  
Sylvia K Plevritis
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Diagnostic Biomarker ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Sensitivity Profile

Abstract Background The Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) reduces the false-positive rate of lung cancer screening but introduces prolonged periods of uncertainty for indeterminate findings. We assess the cost-effectiveness of a screening program that assesses indeterminate findings earlier via a hypothetical diagnostic biomarker introduced in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines. Methods We evaluated the performance of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on lung cancer screening with and without a hypothetical non-invasive diagnostic biomarker using a validated microsimulation model. The diagnostic biomarker assesses the malignancy of indeterminate nodules, replacing Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, and is characterized by a varying sensitivity profile that depends on nodule’s size, specificity, and cost. We tested the robustness of our findings through univariate sensitivity analyses. Results A lung cancer screening program per the USPSTF guidelines that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker with at least medium sensitivity profile and 90% specificity, that costs ≤$250, is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio lower than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and improves lung cancer-specific mortality reduction while requiring fewer screening exams than the USPSTF guidelines with Lung-RADS. A screening program with a biomarker costing ≥$750 is not cost-effective. The health benefits accrued and costs associated with the screening program are sensitive to the disutility of indeterminate findings and specificity of the biomarker, respectively. Conclusions Lung cancer screening that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker, in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program and warrants further investigation.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of screening smokers and ex-smokers for lung cancer in the Netherlands in different age groups

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed N. M. T. Al Khayat ◽  
Job F. H. Eijsink ◽  
Maarten J. Postma ◽  
Ewoudt M. W. van de Garde ◽  
Marinus van Hulst
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objective We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening smokers and ex-smokers for lung cancer in the Netherlands. Methods A Markov model was used to evaluate the health effects and costs of lung cancer screening from the healthcare perspective. The effects and costs of ten screening scenarios with different start and stop ages of screening were examined across a lifetime horizon in a cohort of 100,000 smokers and ex- smokers 50 years and older. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of screening smokers and ex-smokers aged 50–60 years, 50–70 years, and 50 years and older are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of € 20,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Screening 50–60-year-old smokers and ex-smokers was the most cost-effective scenario with an ICER of € 14,094 per QALY gained. However, screening smokers and ex-smokers 50 years and older yielded the highest QALYs and resulted in an ICER of € 16,594 per QALY, which is below the threshold of € 20,000 per QALY. All screening scenarios compared to no screening resulted in CERs between the € 14,000 and € 16,000 per QALY gained. The efficiency frontier showed that screening smokers and ex-smokers in the age groups 70 years and older, 60–70 years, 60 years and older are excluded by extended dominance by no screening, screening smokers and ex-smokers aged 50–60 years and 50–70 years. Conclusion This study showed that lung cancer screening is cost-effective in the Netherlands.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Hungary

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Z Voko ◽  
A Molnar ◽  
V Valay ◽  
M Moizs ◽  
A Kerpel-Fronius ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography

Abstract Background Hungary has the highest incidence of lung cancer in the world (GLOBOCAN, 2018). Since lung cancer is rarely treatable in its advanced stage, one possible way to reduce mortality is early diagnosis and subsequent treatment. The possibility and necessity of introducing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening as a public health programme is a current and relevant health policy issue. Methods A Markov cohort model was built to assess the cost-effectiveness of such a risk group screening programme in Hungary. The model was populated with transition probabilities and resource utilization data derived from the HUNCHEST Hungarian lung cancer screening trial. The model results are presented in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results A closed cohort of 10,000 smokers with the average starting age of 59 years was followed over life-time horizon and screened for lung cancer annually until the age of 74. Compared to the current scenario of no organized lung cancer screening in Hungary, the model resulted in an additional 0.1614 life-year gained per individual and an additional 0.2924 disease-free life-year gained per individual with annual screening frequency. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was EUR 608 indicating that assessed intervention is cost-effective in the analyzed setting. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model results. Conclusions Results suggest that introducing low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer is a cost-effective intervention in Hungary. Considering the exceptionally high incidence and mortality of lung cancer in Hungary, the population could benefit from such a risk group screening programme. Key messages Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer is cost-effectiveness in the Hungarian setting. Policy makers are encouraged to consider the introduction of a risk group screening programme.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110023
Author(s):  
Robert Benamouzig ◽  
Stéphanie Barré ◽  
Jean-Christophe Saurin ◽  
Henri Leleu ◽  
Alexandre Vimont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Familial History ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

Background and aims: Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population. Methods: Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually. Results: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY ( versus no screening) and €3100/QALY ( versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy ( versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening. Conclusion: At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives. Plain Language Summary Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history. Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3–5 years. Colonoscopy every 3–5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost–effectiveness ratio. Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Cost-effectiveness of primarily human papillomavirus–based cervical cancer screening in settings with currently established Pap screening: A systematic review commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 184-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolai Mühlberger ◽  
Gaby Sroczynski ◽  
Eva Esteban ◽  
Thomas Mittendorf ◽  
Rebecca A. Miksad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Pap Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Hpv Screening ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The aim of this study was to summarize the current evidence for the cost-effectiveness of primarily human papillomavirus (HPV) -based cervical cancer screening in settings with already established Papanicolaou test (Pap) programs. Emphasis was placed on the German situation with annual Pap screening.Methods:Medical, economic, and health technology assessment (HTA) databases were systematically searched for cost-effectiveness studies comparing HPV to Pap screening. Study data were extracted, standardized, and summarized in cost-effectiveness plots contrasting HPV strategies to Pap screening with 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-years interval. For each Pap setting, the likelihood of cost-effective HPV screening was assessed depending on willingness-to-pay.Results:We reviewed twelve decision-analytic cost-effectiveness models. Study results showed wide variation due to methodical heterogeneity. Data synthesis revealed that the cost-effectiveness of HPV screening depends on the interval of the established Pap screening strategy. In comparison with Pap screening every 2 years, only 25 percent of the HPV-based screening strategies were cost-effective. However, in comparison with Pap screening every 1, 3, or 5 years, 83 percent, 55 percent, and 92 percent of HPV screening strategies were cost-effective, respectively. Results for settings with annual Pap screening are based on models assuming 100 percent screening coverage.Conclusions:The introduction of HPV-based screening programs is cost-effective if the screening interval of the established Pap program exceeds 2 years. In settings with biennial Pap screening, introduction of HPV-based screening is unlikely to be cost-effective. Results also suggest cost-effectiveness of HPV-based screening in settings with annual Pap screening; however, this finding should be confirmed under realistic screening adherence assumptions.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Strategies Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 409-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam J. N. Raymakers ◽  
John Mayo ◽  
Stephen Lam ◽  
J. Mark FitzGerald ◽  
David G. T. Whitehurst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document