Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography Based on Start Age and Interval in China: Modeling Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in China. The effectiveness of screening for lung cancer has been reported to reduce lung cancer-specific and overall mortality, although the cost-effectiveness, optimal start age, and screening interval remain unclear.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening among heavy smokers in China by incorporating start age and screening interval.

Methods

A Markov state-transition model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening program in China. The evaluated screening strategies were based on a screening start age of 50-74 years and a screening interval of once or annually. Transition probabilities were obtained from the literature and validated, while cost parameters were derived from databases of local medical insurance bureaus. A societal perspective was adopted. The outputs of the model included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lung cancer-specific mortality, with future costs and outcomes discounted by 5%. A currency exchange rate of 1 CNY=0.1557 USD is applicable. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for different screening strategies relative to nonscreening.

Results

The proposed model suggested that screening led to a gain of 0.001-0.042 QALYs per person as compared with the findings in the nonscreening cohort. Meanwhile, one-time and annual screenings were associated with reductions in lung cancer-related mortality of 0.004%-1.171% and 6.189%-15.819%, respectively. The ICER ranged from 119,974.08 to 614,167.75 CNY per QALY gained relative to nonscreening. Using the World Health Organization threshold of 212,676 CNY per QALY gained, annual screening from a start age of 55 years and one-time screening from the age of 65 years can be considered as cost-effective in China. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Conclusions

This economic evaluation revealed that a population-based lung cancer screening program in China for heavy smokers using low-dose computed tomography was cost-effective for annual screening of smokers aged 55-74 years and one-time screening of those aged 65-74 years. Moreover, annual lung cancer screening should be promoted in China to realize the benefits of a guideline-recommended screening program.

SUBMITTER: Zhao Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9301557 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceChina, which has one-third of the worldwide smoking population, has a substantial cancer burden, with lung cancer being the leading cause of cancer-related death. The effectiveness of lung cancer screening for mortality reduction has been confirmed, but the cost-effectiveness of diverse screening modalities remains unclear.ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) with a biomarker (micro-RNA signature classifier [MSC]) with that of LDCT alone by screening interval and cumulative smoking exposure.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis used Markov state transition models that simulated the 1947 to 1971 China birth cohort. Simulated individuals in 8 cohorts of 10 000 entered the study between ages 50 and 74 years and were followed up until death or age 79 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2050. The model was run with a cycle length of 1 year. All the transition probabilities were validated, and health utility values were extracted from published literature. Cost parameters were derived from the databases of local medical insurance bureaus.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with future costs and outcomes discounted by 5%. Screening strategies with a mean ICER less than Chinese yuan (CNY) 212 676 per QALY gained were deemed to be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of 7 alternative screening strategies with a screening starting age of 50 years, minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 vs 30 pack-years, and screening interval of annual vs 1 time was estimated, including the 2021 China guideline-recommended strategy (LDCT, annual, 30 pack-years) and the 2018 China guideline-recommended strategy (LDCT, annual, 20 pack-years).ResultsIn a simulated population of 80 000 individuals, the conjunctive LDCT and MSC screening strategy was estimated to obtain an ICER of CNY -793 995.17 to 254 417.46 (minimum cumulative smoking exposure, 20-30 pack-years) per QALY gained compared with LDCT screening alone. China's 2021 guideline-recommended strategy was not cost-effective compared with the 2018 guideline-recommended strategy, with higher costs and fewer QALYs gained; the QALY loss ranged from 0.02 to 0.15 per person and the increase in cost ranged from CNY 945.89 to CNY 5131.29 per person. LDCT and MSC screening beginning at age 70 to 74 years in individuals with a 20 pack-year smoking history was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of CNY -793 995.17 per QALY gained. Lowering the minimum cumulative smoking exposure for screening from 30 to 20 pack-years and maintaining annual screening were associated with greater cost savings regardless of the screening tool.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that China's 2018 recommendation for lung cancer screening was more cost-effective than the 2021 recommendation. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening was improved when MSC was included with LDCT. These findings may be useful for the modification of guidelines for lung cancer screening.

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:BackgroundThe National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) results indicate that computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening for current and former smokers with three annual screens can be cost-effective in a trial setting. However, the cost-effectiveness in a population-based setting with >3 screening rounds is uncertain. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in a population-based setting in Ontario, Canada, and evaluate the effects of screening eligibility criteria.Methods and findingsThis study used microsimulation modeling informed by various data sources, including the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), Ontario Cancer Registry, smoking behavior surveys, and the NLST. Persons, born between 1940 and 1969, were examined from a third-party health care payer perspective across a lifetime horizon. Starting in 2015, 576 CT screening scenarios were examined, varying by age to start and end screening, smoking eligibility criteria, and screening interval. Among the examined outcome measures were lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, percentage ever screened, costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars), and overdiagnosis. The results of the base-case analysis indicated that annual screening was more cost-effective than biennial screening. Scenarios with eligibility criteria that required as few as 20 pack-years were dominated by scenarios that required higher numbers of accumulated pack-years. In general, scenarios that applied stringent smoking eligibility criteria (i.e., requiring higher levels of accumulated smoking exposure) were more cost-effective than scenarios with less stringent smoking eligibility criteria, with modest differences in life-years gained. Annual screening between ages 55-75 for persons who smoked ≥40 pack-years and who currently smoke or quit ≤10 y ago yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $41,136 Canadian dollars ($33,825 in May 1, 2015, United States dollars) per life-year gained (compared to annual screening between ages 60-75 for persons who smoked ≥40 pack-years and who currently smoke or quit ≤10 y ago), which was considered optimal at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 Canadian dollars ($41,114 May 1, 2015, US dollars). If 50% lower or higher attributable costs were assumed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this scenario was estimated to be $38,240 ($31,444 May 1, 2015, US dollars) or $48,525 ($39,901 May 1, 2015, US dollars), respectively. If 50% lower or higher costs for CT examinations were assumed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this scenario was estimated to be $28,630 ($23,542 May 1, 2015, US dollars) or $73,507 ($60,443 May 1, 2015, US dollars), respectively. This scenario would screen 9.56% (499,261 individuals) of the total population (ever- and never-smokers) at least once, which would require 4,788,523 CT examinations, and reduce lung cancer mortality in the total population by 9.05% (preventing 13,108 lung cancer deaths), while 12.53% of screen-detected cancers would be overdiagnosed (4,282 overdiagnosed cases). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall results were most sensitive to variations in CT examination costs. Quality of life was not incorporated in the analyses, and assumptions for follow-up procedures were based on data from the NLST, which may not be generalizable to a population-based setting.ConclusionsLung cancer screening with stringent smoking eligibility criteria can be cost-effective in a population-based setting.

Project description:ImportanceScreening for lung cancer has the potential to reduce mortality, but in addition to detecting aggressive tumors, screening will also detect indolent tumors that otherwise may not cause clinical symptoms. These overdiagnosis cases represent an important potential harm of screening because they incur additional cost, anxiety, and morbidity associated with cancer treatment.ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST).Design, setting, and participantsWe used data from the NLST, a randomized trial comparing screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) vs chest radiography (CXR) among 53 452 persons at high risk for lung cancer observed for 6.4 years, to estimate the excess number of lung cancers in the LDCT arm of the NLST compared with the CXR arm.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated 2 measures of overdiagnosis: the probability that a lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT is an overdiagnosis (PS), defined as the excess lung cancers detected by LDCT divided by all lung cancers detected by screening in the LDCT arm; and the number of cases that were considered overdiagnosis relative to the number of persons needed to screen to prevent 1 death from lung cancer.ResultsDuring follow-up, 1089 lung cancers were reported in the LDCT arm and 969 in the CXR arm of the NLST. The probability is 18.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-30.6%) that any lung cancer detected by screening with LDCT was an overdiagnosis, 22.5% (95% CI, 9.7%-34.3%) that a non-small cell lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis, and 78.9% (95% CI, 62.2%-93.5%) that a bronchioalveolar lung cancer detected by LDCT was an overdiagnosis. The number of cases of overdiagnosis found among the 320 participants who would need to be screened in the NLST to prevent 1 death from lung cancer was 1.38.Conclusions and relevanceMore than 18% of all lung cancers detected by LDCT in the NLST seem to be indolent, and overdiagnosis should be considered when describing the risks of LDCT screening for lung cancer.

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

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.