Dataset Information

Risk-Targeted Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Targeting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening to persons at highest risk for lung cancer mortality has been suggested to improve screening efficiency.

Objective

To quantify the value of risk-targeted selection for lung cancer screening compared with National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria.

Design

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a multistate prediction model.

Data sources

NLST.

Target population

Current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening.

Time horizon

Lifetime.

Perspective

Health care sector.

Intervention

Risk-targeted versus NLST-based screening.

Outcome measures

Incremental 7-year mortality, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of screening with LDCT versus chest radiography at each decile of lung cancer mortality risk.

Results of base-case analysis

Participants at greater risk for lung cancer mortality were older and had more comorbid conditions and higher screening-related costs. The incremental lung cancer mortality benefits during the first 7 years ranged from 1.2 to 9.5 lung cancer deaths prevented per 10 000 person-years for the lowest to highest risk deciles, respectively (extreme decile ratio, 7.9). The gradient of benefits across risk groups, however, was attenuated in terms of life-years (extreme decile ratio, 3.6) and QALYs (extreme decile ratio, 2.4). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were similar across risk deciles ($75 000 per QALY in the lowest risk decile to $53 000 per QALY in the highest risk decile). Payers willing to pay $100 000 per QALY would pay for LDCT screening for all decile groups.

Results of sensitivity analysis

Alternative assumptions did not substantially alter our findings.

Limitation

Our model did not account for all correlated differences between lung cancer mortality risk and quality of life.

Conclusions

Although risk targeting may improve screening efficiency in terms of early lung cancer mortality per person screened, the gains in efficiency are attenuated and modest in terms of life-years, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness.

Primary funding source

National Institutes of Health (U01NS086294).

SUBMITTER: Kumar V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6533918 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSeveral studies have proved that Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) is a potential candidate for realizing precision screening. The effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been proved to reduce lung cancer specific and overall mortality, but the cost-effectiveness of diverse screening strategies remained unclear.MethodsThe comparative cost-effectiveness analysis used a Markov state-transition model to assess the potential effect and costs of the screening strategies incorporating PRS or not. A hypothetical cohort of 300,000 heavy smokers entered the study at age 50-74 years and were followed up until death or age 79 years. The model was run with a cycle length of 1 year. All the transition probabilities were validated and the performance value of PRS was extracted from published literature. A societal perspective was adopted and cost parameters were derived from databases of local medical insurance bureau. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted.ResultsThe strategy incorporating PRS was estimated to obtain an ICER of CNY 156,691.93 to CNY 221,741.84 per QALY gained compared with non-screening with the initial start age range across 50-74 years. The strategy that screened using LDCT alone from 70-74 years annually could obtain an ICER of CNY 80,880.85 per QALY gained, which was the most cost-effective strategy. The introduction of PRS as an extra eligible criteria was associated with making strategies cost-saving but also lose the capability of gaining more LYs compared with LDCT screening alone.ConclusionThe PRS-based conjunctive screening strategy for lung cancer screening in China was not cost-effective using the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 time Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and the optimal screening strategy for lung cancer still remains to be LDCT screening for now. Further optimization of the screening modality can be useful to consider adoption of PRS and prospective evaluation remains a research priority.

Project description:Background and aimsCurrent 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.MethodsEight 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.ResultsCompared 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.ConclusionAt 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 summaryCost-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.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a breast cancer screening programme that incorporates genetic testing using breast cancer associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), against the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme to aid in its implementation into the current programme in Singapore.MethodsA Markov model was used to compare the costs and health outcomes of the current screening programme, against a polygenic risk-tailored screening programme, which can advise a long-term screening strategy depending on the individual's polygenic risk. The model took the perspective of the healthcare system, with a time horizon of 40 years, following women from the age of 35 to 74. Epidemiological and cost data were taken from Asian studies, and an annual discount rate of 3% was used. The model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), calculated from the difference in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenarios with varying risk thresholds for each polygenic risk group were examined. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.ResultsThe ICER for a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme, compared with the current biennial mammogram-only screening programme, was - 3713.80 SGD/QALY, with incremental costs < 0 and incremental effects > 0. The scenario analysis of different polygenic risk cutoffs showed that the ICERs remain negative, with all ICERs falling within the south-east quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, indicating that tailored screening is more cost effective than mammogram-only screening, with lower costs and higher QALYs to be gained. This suggests that a polygenic risk-tailored breast cancer screening programme is cost effective, entailing lower cost than the current mammogram-only programme, while causing no additional harm to women.ConclusionResults from this cost-effectiveness analysis show that polygenic risk-tailored screening is cost effective with an ICER of - 3713.80 SGD/QALY. Tailored screening remains cost effective even across varying percentile cutoffs for each risk group. While the results look promising for incorporating polygenic risk into the current breast cancer screening programme, further studies should be conducted to address various limitations.

Project description:BackgroundConventional CTCS images the mid/lower chest for coronary artery disease (CAD). Because many CAD patients are also at risk for lung malignancy, CTCS often discovers incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN). CTCS excludes the upper chest, where malignancy is common. Full-chest CTCS (FCT) may be a cost-effective screening tool for IPN.MethodsA decision tree was created to compare a FCT to CTCS in a hypothetical patient cohort with suspected CAD. (Figure) The design compares the effects of missed cancers on CTCS with the cost of working up non-malignant nodules on FCT. The model was informed by results of the National Lung Screening Trial and literature review, including the rate of malignancy among patients receiving CTCS and the rate of malignancy in upper vs lower portions of the lung. The analysis outcomes are Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is generally considered beneficial when <$50,000/QALY.ResultsLiterature review suggests that rate of IPNs in the upper portion of the lung varied from 47 to 76%. Our model assumed that IPNs occur in upper and lower portions of the lung with equal frequency. The model also assumes an equal malignancy potential in upper lung IPNs despite data that malignancy occurs 61–66% in upper lung fields.In the base case analysis, a FCT will lead to an increase of 0.03 QALYs comparing to conventional CTCS (14.54 vs 14.51 QALY, respectively), which translates into an QALY increase of 16?days. The associated incremental cost for FCT is $278 ($1027 vs $748, FCT vs CTCS respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $10,289/QALY, suggesting significant benefit. Sensitivity analysis shows this benefit increases proportional to the rate of malignancy in upper lung fields.ConclusionConventional CTCS may be a missed opportunity to screen for upper lung field cancers in high risk patients. The ICER of FCT is better than screening for breast cancer screening (mammograms $80?k/QALY) and colon cancer (colonoscopy $6?k/QALY). Prospective studies are appropriate to define protocols for FCT.

Project description:BackgroundWhile polygenic risk scores (PRS) could enable the streamlining of organised cancer screening programmes, its current discriminative ability is limited. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to trade-off the benefits and harms of PRS-stratified cancer screening in China.MethodsThe validated National Cancer Center (NCC) modelling framework for six cancers (lung, liver, breast, gastric, colorectum, and oesophagus) was used to simulate cancer incidence, progression, stage-specific cancer detection, and risk of death. We estimated the number of cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, number needed to screen (NNS), overdiagnosis, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one-time PRS-stratified screening strategy (screening 25% of PRS-defined high-risk population) for a birth cohort at age 60 in 2025, compared with unstratified screening strategy (screening 25% of general population) and no screening strategy. We applied lifetime horizon, societal perspective, and 3% discount rate. An ICER less than $18,364 per QALY gained is considered cost-effective.FindingsOne-time cancer screening for population aged 60 was the most cost-effective strategy compared to screening at other ages. Compared with an unstratified screening strategy, the PRS-stratified screening strategy averted more cancer deaths (61,237 vs. 40,329), had a lower NNS to prevent one death (307 vs. 451), had a slightly higher overdiagnosis (14.1% vs. 13.8%), and associated with an additional 130,045 QALYs at an additional cost of $1942 million, over a lifetime horizon. The ICER for all six cancers combined was $14,930 per QALY gained, with the ICER varying from $7928 in colorectal cancer to $39,068 in liver cancer. ICER estimates were sensitive to changes in risk threshold and cost of PRS tools.InterpretationPRS-stratified screening strategy modestly improves clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of organised cancer screening programmes. Reducing the costs of polygenic risk stratification is needed before PRS implementation.FundingThe Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Jing-jin-ji Special Projects for Basic Research Cooperation, and the Sanming Project of the Medicine in Shenzhen.