Cost Utility Analysis of a Pilot Study for the Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost utility of a pilot study of Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project.Materials and methods
We constructed a Markov model consisting of 26 states based on the natural history of lung cancer according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results summary stage (localized, regional, distant). In the base case, people aged 55-74 years were under consideration for annual screening. Costs and quality-adjusted life years were simulated to calculate the incremental cost utility ratio. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the uncertainty associated with screening target ages, stage distribution, cost, utility, mortality, screening duration, and discount rate.Results
The base case (US$25,383 per quality-adjusted life year gained) was cost-effective compared to the scenario of no screening and acceptable considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$27,000 per quality-adjusted life years gained. In terms of the target age of screening, the age between 60 and 74 years was the most cost-effective. Lung cancer screening was still cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses on the cost for treatment, utility, mortality, screening duration, and less than 5% discount rates, although the result was sensitive to a rise in positive rates or variation of stage distribution.Conclusion
Our results showed the cost-effectiveness of annual low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations.
SUBMITTER: Kim J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9296945 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Hepatic resection is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases when feasible. Techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been the subject of ongoing research in hopes of achieving a similar survival to that achieved with hepatic resection, but with less morbidity and better quality of life (QOL). The aim was to to generate a hypothesis concerning the cost-utility of various treatments that may be further tested with randomized trials in the future. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-randomized pilot study comparing the cost-utility of hepatic resection, RFA, systemic chemotherapy, and symptom control alone for colorectal liver metastases. All patients with newly diagnosed liver malignancies were eligible. QOL was measured serially with the Health Utilities Index. Costs, in 2001 Canadian dollars, were captured from the viewpoint of society in general. RESULTS: In all, 40 patients were enrolled in the study: 7 underwent hepatic resection, 7 underwent RFA (sometimes in combination with resection), 20 received systemic chemotherapy, and 6 received symptom control alone. Liver resection appeared to be the most effective approach, with an average benefit of 2.58 QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) compared with 1.95 QALYs for RFA, 1.18 QALYs for chemotherapy, and 0.82 QALYs for symptom control alone, resulting in cost-utility ratios of $7792, $8056, $12,571, and $4788 per QALY, respectively. DISCUSSION: The cost-utility of hepatic resection and RFA appeared similar even though patients receiving RFA had more advanced disease. The role of RFA is still being defined; however, if long-term survival proves to be promising, then this study lends support to the conduct of randomized controlled trials in the future.
| S-EPMC2020770 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening conducted in high-risk group using low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) has been reported as an effective method to reduce lung cancer mortality in two large randomized-control trials. However, the effectiveness is uncertain when lung cancer screening is expanded to a nationwide population-based program.MethodsThe Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a single-arm cohort study that was conducted from February 2017 to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an organized national lung cancer screening program in Korea. High-risk population aged 55-74 years with more than a 30-pack-year smoking history was recruited. Smoking history was obtained from administering questionnaires at national health screening programs or public smoking cessation programs which are already established programs in Korea. The screening results were reported using the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), suggested by the American College of Radiology. K-LUCAS was performed by a network-based diagnosis supporting system using a computer-aided detection (CAD) program to maintain screening quality. Current smokers were provided with mandatory smoking counseling.ResultsAmong 71,829 participants aged 50 years or older in the national health screening program, 5,975 (8.3%) were eligible for lung cancer screening. Among them, 1,062 (17.8%) refused to participate in K-LUCAS. Additionally, 779 participants were recruited in the smoking cessation program. Thus, a total of 5,692 eligible high-risk participants were recruited in this study. Among them, 865 (15.2%) had positive screening results, which requires a further examination; 529 (9.3%) had Lung-RADS category 3 (indeterminate), and 336 (5.9%) had category 4 (suspicious of lung cancer); 42 (0.7%) had confirmed lung cancer. Approximately 66.7% had early-stage lung cancer: 24 (57.1%), stage I and 4 (9.5%), stage II. Six (1.1%) patients developed complications at the time of diagnosis, including one death. The anxiety level related to cancer screening was low. Participation in screening encouraged motivation to quit smoking.ConclusionsK-LUCAS provided promising evidence supporting the implementation of a national lung cancer screening program to detect early stage lung cancer and promote smoking cessation for participants in Asian population.
| S-EPMC7947393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A 2011 report from the National Lung Screening Trial indicates that three annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings for lung cancer reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% compared to chest X-ray among older individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Discussion has shifted from clinical proof to financial feasibility. The goal of this study was to determine whether LDCT screening for lung cancer in a commercially-insured population (aged 50-64) at high risk for lung cancer is cost-effective and to quantify the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions in a lung cancer screening program. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The current study builds upon a previous simulation model to estimate the cost-utility of annual, repeated LDCT screenings over 15 years in a high risk hypothetical cohort of 18 million adults between age 50 and 64 with 30+ pack-years of smoking history. In the base case, the lung cancer screening intervention cost $27.8 billion over 15 years and yielded 985,284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for a cost-utility ratio of $28,240 per QALY gained. Adding smoking cessation to these annual screenings resulted in increases in both the costs and QALYs saved, reflected in cost-utility ratios ranging from $16,198 per QALY gained to $23,185 per QALY gained. Annual LDCT lung cancer screening in this high risk population remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this study indicate that repeat annual lung cancer screening in a high risk cohort of adults aged 50-64 is highly cost-effective. Offering smoking cessation interventions with the annual screening program improved the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening between 20% and 45%. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this study were in line with other accepted cancer screening interventions and support inclusion of annual LDCT screening for lung cancer in a high risk population in clinical recommendations.
| S-EPMC3737088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease in Western countries. No studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of screening its advanced form, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS:We performed a cost-utility analysis of annual noninvasive screening strategies using third-party payer perspective in a general population in comparison to screening a high-risk obese or diabetic population. Screening algorithms involved well-studied techniques, including NAFLD fibrosis score, transient elastography (TE), and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging for detecting advanced fibrosis (? F3); and plasma cytokeratin (CK)-18 for NASH detection. Liver biopsy and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) were compared as confirmation methods. Canadian dollar (CAD or C$) costs were adjusted for inflation and discounted at 5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ?C$ 50,000 was considered cost-effective. RESULTS:Compared with no screening, screening with NAFLD fibrosis score/TE/CK-18 algorithm with MRE as confirmation for advanced fibrosis had an ICER of C$ 26,143 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations was more cost-effective, with an ICER of C$ 9,051 and C$ 7,991 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. Liver biopsy confirmation was not found to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS:Our model suggests that annual NASH screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations can be cost-effective. KEY POINTS:• This cost-utility analysis suggests that screening for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis may be cost-effective. • In particular, screening of high-risk obese or diabetic populations is more cost-effective. • Magnetic resonance elastography was more cost-effective to confirm disease compared to biopsy. • More studies are needed to determine quality of life in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. • More management strategies for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are also needed.
| S-EPMC4836892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation can reduce mortality of patients with cardiovascular disease, but a frequently low participation rate in rehabilitation programs has been found globally. The objective of the Teledialog study was to assess the cost-utility (CU) of a cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) program. The aim of the intervention was to increase the patients' participation in the CTR program. At discharge, an individualized 3-month rehabilitation plan was formulated for each patient. At home, the patients measured their own blood pressure, pulse, weight, and steps taken for 3 months.Materials and methodsThe analysis was carried out together with a randomized controlled trial with 151 patients during 2012-2014. Costs of the intervention were estimated with a health sector perspective following international guidelines for CU. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.ResultsThe rehabilitation activities were approximately the same in the two groups, but the number of contacts with the physiotherapist was higher among the intervention group. The mean total cost per patient was €1,700 higher in the intervention group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gain was higher in the intervention group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The incremental CU ratio was more than €400,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsEven though the rehabilitation activities increased, the program does not appear to be cost-effective. The intervention itself was not costly (less than €500), and increasing the number of patients may show reduced costs of the devices and make the CTR more cost-effective. Telerehabilitation can increase participation, but the intervention, in its current form, does not appear to be cost-effective.
| S-EPMC4939376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTargeting 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.ObjectiveTo quantify the value of risk-targeted selection for lung cancer screening compared with National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis using a multistate prediction model.Data sourcesNLST.Target populationCurrent and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveHealth care sector.InterventionRisk-targeted versus NLST-based screening.Outcome measuresIncremental 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 analysisParticipants 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 analysisAlternative assumptions did not substantially alter our findings.LimitationOur model did not account for all correlated differences between lung cancer mortality risk and quality of life.ConclusionsAlthough 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 sourceNational Institutes of Health (U01NS086294).
| S-EPMC6533918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to identify the most cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), focusing on screening initiation age in Korea.MethodsWe designed Markov simulation models targeting individuals aged 40 years or older. Twelve strategies combining screening initiation ages (40, 45, or 50 years old), termination ages (80 or no limit), and intervals (1 or 2 years) were modeled, and the most cost-effective strategy was selected. The robustness of the results was confirmed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of the qualitative and quantitative FIT methods was verified using scenario analysis.ResultsThe 2-year interval strategy with a screening age range of 45-80 years was the most cost-effective (incremental cost-utility ratio = KRW 7,281,646/quality adjusted life years). The most sensitive variables in the results were transition rate from advanced adenoma to local cancer and discount rate. The uncertainty in the model was substantially low. Moreover, strategies starting at the age of 40 years were also cost-effective but considered suboptimal. The scenario analysis showed that there was no significant difference in cost-effectiveness between strategies with various relative screening ratio of quantitative and qualitative method.ConclusionThe screening method for advancing the initiation age, as presented in the 2015 revised national screening recommendations, was superior regarding cost-effectiveness. This study provides a new paradigm for the development of a national cancer screening system in Korea, which can be utilized as a scientific basis for economic evaluations.
| S-EPMC10948257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the cost-utility of an oral precancer screening program compared to a no-screening program in Thailand.Materials and methodsMarkov models were performed to simulate costs and Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) of both the screening and no-screening programs in the Thai population aged over 40 years. There are four steps to the screening program in Thailand: 1) mouth self-examination (MSE); 2) visual examination by trained dental nurses (VETDN); 3) visual examination by trained dentists (VETD); and 4) visual examination by oral surgeons (VEOS). The societal perspective and lifetime horizon were applied. Variables used were derived from the pilot study of the oral precancer screening program in Roi Et province as well as through patient interviews and local and international literature reviews. Results were presented in terms of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess parameters uncertainty.ResultsThe screening program yielded higher costs (1,362 Baht) and QALYs (0.0044 years) than the no screening program, producing an ICER of 311,030 Baht per QALY gained. This indicates that the screening program is cost-ineffective in the Thai context, where the cost-effectiveness threshold is THB 160,000 per QALY gained. However, the programs will be cost-effective if the screening program are improved in one of three ways; 1) the sensitivity and specificity of MSE are more than 60%, 2) the sensitivity and specificity of VETDN are greater than 90%, or 3) the low accuracy steps like MSE or VETDN are removed from the screening program.ConclusionThe screening program is found to be cost-ineffective for oral precancer detection in Thailand. However, this study suggests 3 alternative policy options to ensure the cost-effectiveness of the program.
| S-EPMC6264816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that screening with low-dose CT versus chest radiography reduced lung cancer mortality by 16% to 20%. More recently, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of CT screening for lung cancer versus no screening in the NLST was performed. The CEA conformed to the reference-case recommendations of the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, including the use of the societal perspective and an annual discount rate of 3%. The CEA was based on several important assumptions. In this paper, I review the methods and assumptions used to obtain the base case estimate of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In addition, I show how this estimate varied widely among different subsets and when some of the base case assumptions were changed and speculate on the cost-effectiveness of CT screening for lung cancer outside the NLST.
| S-EPMC4890607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic screening for gastric cancer is debatable in countries with an intermediate risk.ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to determine the cost-utility of screening strategies for gastric cancer in a European country.MethodsWe conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model comparing three screening strategies versus no screening: stand-alone upper endoscopy, endoscopy combined with a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test or pepsinogens serologic screening. Clinical data were collected from systematic reviews, costs from published national data and utilities as quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The threshold was set at €37,000 (2016 prices).ResultsUpper endoscopy combined with screening colonoscopy (every 10 or 5 years) had an ICER of 15,407/QALY and €30,908/QALY respectively, stand-alone endoscopic screening (every five years) an ICER of €70,693/QALY and pepsinogens screening an ICER of €143,344/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that only endoscopic costs <€75, a provision of only three endoscopies per patient or a gastric cancer risk >25/100,000 would make stand-alone endoscopic screening cost-effective.ConclusionEndoscopic gastric cancer screening in Europe can be cost-effective if combined with a screening colonoscopy in countries with a gastric cancer risk ≥10 per 100,000.
| S-EPMC5833230 | biostudies-literature