Dataset Information

Comparing the benefits of screening for breast cancer and lung cancer using a novel natural history model.

ABSTRACT: To estimate the impact of early detection of cancer, knowledge of how quickly primary tumors grow and at what size they shed lethal metastases is critical. We developed a natural history model of cancer to estimate the probability of disease-specific cure as a function of tumor size, the tumor volume doubling time (TVDT), and disease-specific mortality reduction achievable by screening. The model was applied to non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), separately. Model parameter estimates were based on Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry datasets and validated on screening trials. Compared to IDC, NSCLC is estimated to have a lower probability of disease-specific cure at the same detected tumor size, shed lethal metastases at smaller sizes (median: 19 mm for IDC versus 8 mm for NSCLC), have a TVDT that is almost half as long (median: 252 days for IDC versus 134 days for NSCLC). Consequently, NSCLC is associated with a lower mortality reduction from screening at the same screen detection threshold and screening interval. In summary, using a similar natural history model of cancer, we quantify the disease-specific curability attributable to screening for breast cancer, and separately lung cancer, in terms of the TVDT and onset of lethal metastases.

SUBMITTER: Lin RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4146530 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the benefits of screening for breast cancer and lung cancer using a novel natural history model.

Lin Ray S RS Plevritis Sylvia K SK

Cancer causes & control : CCC 20111125 1

To estimate the impact of early detection of cancer, knowledge of how quickly primary tumors grow and at what size they shed lethal metastases is critical. We developed a natural history model of cancer to estimate the probability of disease-specific cure as a function of tumor size, the tumor volume doubling time (TVDT), and disease-specific mortality reduction achievable by screening. The model was applied to non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), separately ...[more]

PMID: 22116537

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes.MethodsAn individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained).ResultsLDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold.LimitationsLDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included.ConclusionLung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.

Dataset Information

Comparing the benefits of screening for breast cancer and lung cancer using a novel natural history model.

Publications

Comparing the benefits of screening for breast cancer and lung cancer using a novel natural history model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets