Dataset Information

Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study.

ABSTRACT: Background:Many health systems are exploring how to implement low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening programs that are effective and patient-centered. Objective:To examine factors that influence when LDCT screening is preference-sensitive. Design:State-transition microsimulation model. Data Sources:Two large randomized trials, published decision analyses, and the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) cancer registry. Target Population:U.S.-representative sample of simulated patients meeting current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for screening eligibility. Time Horizon:Lifetime. Perspective:Individual. Intervention:LDCT screening annually for 3 years. Outcome Measures:Lifetime quality-adjusted life-year gains and reduction in lung cancer mortality. To examine the effect of preferences on net benefit, disutilities (the "degree of dislike") quantifying the burden of screening and follow-up were varied across a likely range. The effect of varying the rate of false-positive screening results and overdiagnosis associated with screening was also examined. Results of Base-Case Analysis:Moderate differences in preferences about the downsides of LDCT screening influenced whether screening was appropriate for eligible persons with annual lung cancer risk less than 0.3% or life expectancy less than 10.5 years. For higher-risk eligible persons with longer life expectancy (roughly 50% of the study population), the benefits of LDCT screening overcame even highly negative views about screening and its downsides. Results of Sensitivity Analysis:Rates of false-positive findings and overdiagnosed lung cancer were not highly influential. Limitation:The quantitative thresholds that were identified may vary depending on the structure of the microsimulation model. Conclusion:Identifying circumstances in which LDCT screening is more versus less preference-sensitive may help clinicians personalize their screening discussions, tailoring to both preferences and clinical benefit. Primary Funding Source:None.

SUBMITTER: Caverly TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6033668 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study.

Caverly Tanner J TJ Cao Pianpian P Hayward Rodney A RA Meza Rafael R

Annals of internal medicine 20180529 1

<h4>Background</h4>Many health systems are exploring how to implement low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening programs that are effective and patient-centered.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine factors that influence when LDCT screening is preference-sensitive.<h4>Design</h4>State-transition microsimulation model.<h4>Data sources</h4>Two large randomized trials, published decision analyses, and the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) cancer registry.<h4>Target population</h4>U.S.- ...[more]

PMID: 29809244

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a global health issue with noticeably high incidence and mortality. Microsimulation models offer a time-efficient method to dynamically analyze multiple screening strategies. The study aimed to identify the efficient organized CRC screening strategies for Shenzhen City.MethodsA microsimulation model named CMOST was employed to simulate CRC screening among 1 million people without migration in Shenzhen, with two CRC developing pathways and real-world participation rates. Initial screening included the National Colorectal Polyp Care score (NCPCS), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and risk-stratification model (RS model), followed by diagnostic colonoscopy for positive results. Several start-ages (40, 45, 50 years), stop-ages (70, 75, 80 years), and screening intervals (annual, biennial, triennial) were assessed for each strategy. The efficiency of CRC screening was assessed by number of colonoscopies versus life-years gained (LYG).ResultsThe screening strategies reduced CRC lifetime incidence by 14-27 cases (30.9-59.0%) and mortality by 7-12 deaths (41.5-71.3%), yielded 83-155 LYG, while requiring 920 to 5901 colonoscopies per 1000 individuals. Out of 81 screening, 23 strategies were estimated efficient. Most of the efficient screening strategies started at age 40 (17 out of 23 strategies) and stopped at age 70 (13 out of 23 strategies). Predominant screening intervals identified were annual for NCPCS, biennial for FIT, and triennial for RS models. The incremental colonoscopies to LYG ratios of efficient screening increased with shorter intervals within the same test category. Compared with no screening, when screening at the same start-to-stop age and interval, the additional colonoscopies per LYG increased progressively for FIT, NCPCS and RS model.ConclusionThis study identifies efficient CRC screening strategies for the average-risk population in Shenzhen. Most efficient screening strategies indeed start at age 40, but the optimal starting age depends on the chosen willingness-to-pay threshold. Within insufficient colonoscopy resources, efficient FIT and NCPCS screening strategies might be CRC initial screening strategies. We acknowledged the age-dependency bias of the results with NCPCS and RS.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous simulation studies estimating the impacts of lung cancer screening have ignored the changes in smoking prevalence over time in the United States. Our primary rationale was to perform, to our knowledge, the first simulation study that estimates the health outcomes of lung cancer screening with explicit modeling of smoking trends for the whole US population. METHODS/FINDINGS:Utilizing a well-validated microsimulation model, we estimated the benefits and harms of an annual low-dose computed tomography screening scenario with a realistic screening adherence rate versus a no-screening scenario for the US population from 2016-2030. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria were applied: age 55-77 years at time of screening, history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking, and current smoker or former smoker with fewer than 15 years since quitting. In the screened population, cumulative mortality reduction was projected to reach 16.98% (95% CI 16.90%-17.07%). Cumulative mortality reduction was estimated to be 3.52% (95% CI 3.50%-3.53%) for the overall study population, with annual mortality reduction peaking at 4.38% (95% CI 4.36%-4.41%) in 2021 and falling to 3.53% (95% CI 3.50%-3.56%) by 2030. Lung cancer screening would save a projected 148,484 life-years (95% CI 147,429-149,540) across the total population through 2030. There were estimated to be 9,054 (95% CI 9,011-9,098) overdiagnosed cases among the 252,429 (95% CI 251,208-253,649) screen-detected lung cancer diagnoses, yielding an overdiagnosis rate of 3.59%. The limitations of our study are that we do not explicitly model race or socioeconomic status and our model was calibrated to data from studies performed in academic centers, both of which may impact the generalizability of our results. We also exclusively model the effects of the CMS guidelines for lung cancer screening and not any other screening strategies. CONCLUSIONS:The mortality reduction and life-years gained estimated by this study are lower than those of single birth cohort studies. Single cohort studies neglect the changing dynamics of smoking behavior across generations, whereas this study reflects the trend of decreasing smoking prevalence since the 1960s. Maximum benefit could be derived from lung cancer screening through 2021; in later years, mortality reduction due to screening will decline. If a comprehensive screening program is not implemented in the near future, the opportunity to achieve these benefits will have passed.

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness.MethodsUsing the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars.ResultsOffering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt.InterpretationAdding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.

Project description:More than half of males in China are current smokers and evidence from western countries tells us that an unprecedented number of smoking-attributable deaths will occur as the Chinese population ages. We used the China Lung Cancer Policy Model (LCPM) to simulate effects of computed tomography (CT)-based lung cancer screening in China, comparing the impact of a screening guideline published in 2015 by a Chinese expert group to a version developed for the United States by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The China LCPM, built using an existing lung cancer microsimulation model, can project population outcomes associated with interventions for smoking-related diseases. After calibrating the model to published Chinese smoking prevalence and lung cancer mortality rates, we simulated screening from 2016 to 2050 based on eligibility criteria from the CMS and Chinese guidelines, which differ by age to begin and end screening, pack-years smoked, and years since quitting. Outcomes included number of screens, mortality reduction, and life-years saved for each strategy. We projected that in the absence of screening, 14.98 million lung cancer deaths would occur between 2016 and 2050. Screening with the CMS guideline would prevent 0.72 million deaths and 5.8 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.58% and 1.97% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Screening with the Chinese guideline would prevent 0.74 million deaths and 6.6 million life-years lost, resulting in 6.30% and 2.79% mortality reduction in males and females, respectively. Through 2050, 1.43 billion screens would be required using the Chinese screening strategy, compared to 988 million screens using the CMS guideline. In conclusion, CT-based lung cancer screening implemented in 2016 and based on the Chinese screening guideline would prevent about 20,000 (2.9%) more lung cancer deaths through 2050, but would require about 445 million (44.7%) more screens than the CMS guideline.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To estimate benefits and harms of different colorectal cancer screening strategies, stratified by (baseline) 15-year colorectal cancer risk. DESIGN:Microsimulation modelling study using MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon). SETTING:A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) defined the time frame and screening interventions, including selection of outcome measures. POPULATION:Norwegian men and women aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk (1-7%). COMPARISONS:Four screening strategies were compared with no screening: biennial or annual faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at 100% adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Colorectal cancer mortality and incidence, burdens, and harms over 15 years of follow-up. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS:Over 15 years of follow-up, screening individuals aged 50-79 at 3% risk of colorectal cancer with annual FIT or single colonoscopy reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 6 per 1000 individuals. Single sigmoidoscopy and biennial FIT reduced it by 5 per 1000 individuals. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 10, 8, and 4 per 1000 individuals, respectively. The estimated incidence reduction for biennial FIT was 1 per 1000 individuals. Serious harms were estimated to be between 3 per 1000 (biennial FIT) and 5 per 1000 individuals (colonoscopy); harms increased with older age. The absolute benefits of screening increased with increasing colorectal cancer risk, while harms were less affected by baseline risk. Results were sensitive to the setting defined by the guideline panel. Because of uncertainty associated with modelling assumptions, we applied a GRADE rating of low certainty evidence to all estimates. CONCLUSIONS:Over a 15 year period, all screening strategies may reduce colorectal cancer mortality to a similar extent. Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy may also reduce colorectal cancer incidence, while FIT shows a smaller incidence reduction. Harms are rare and of similar magnitude for all screening strategies.

Dataset Information

Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study.

Publications

Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets