Cost-effectiveness of baseline low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: the Israeli experience

Cost-effectiveness of volume computed tomography in lung cancer screening: a cohort simulation based on Nelson study outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) with volume-based low-dose computed tomography (CT) versus no screening for an asymptomatic high-risk population in the United Kingdom (UK), utilising the long-term insights provided by the NELSON study, the largest European randomized control trial investigating LCS.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree and a state-transition Markov model to simulate the identification, diagnosis, and treatments for a lung cancer high-risk population, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Eligible participants underwent annual volume CT screening and were compared to a cohort without the option of screening. Screen-detected lung cancers, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were predicted.

RESULTS

Annual volume CT screening of 1.3 million eligible participants resulted in 96,474 more lung cancer cases detected in early stage, and 73,825 fewer cases in late stage, leading to 53,732 premature lung cancer deaths averted and 421,647 QALYs gained, compared to no screening. The ICER was £5,455 per QALY. These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of long-term survival data for lung cancer patients; deficiency in rigorous micro-costing studies to establish detailed treatment costs inputs for lung cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual LCS with volume-based low-dose CT for a high-risk asymptomatic population is cost-effective in the UK, at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, representing an efficient use of NHS resources with substantially improved outcomes for lung cancer patients, as well as additional societal and economic benefits for society as a whole. These findings advocate evidence-based decisions for the potential implementation of a nationwide LCS in the UK.

Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive, associated with low radiation and highly sensitive to lung cancer. To improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening, simultaneous screening for other diseases could be considered. This systematic review was conducted to analyse studies that published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chest LDCT screening programs for different diseases.

METHODS

Scopus and PubMed were searched for English publications (1 January 2011-22 July 2022) using search terms related to screening, computed tomography and cost-effectiveness. An additional search specifically searched for the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Included publications should present a full health economic evaluation of population screening with chest LDCT. The extracted data included the disease screened for, model type, country context of screening, inclusion of comorbidities or incidental findings, incremental costs, incremental effects and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio amongst others. Reporting quality was assessed using the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1799 unique papers, of which 43 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n = 40), and three were on coronary calcium scoring. Microsimulation was the most commonly applied modelling type (n = 16), followed by life table analysis (n = 10) and Markov cohort models (n = 10). Studies reflected the healthcare context of the US (n = 15), Canada (n = 4), the UK (n = 3) and 13 other countries. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from US$10,000 to US$90,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lung cancer screening compared to no screening and was US$15,900/QALY-US$45,300/QALY for coronary calcium scoring compared to no screening.

DISCUSSION

Almost all health economic evaluations of LDCT screening focused on lung cancer. Literature regarding the health economic benefits of simultaneous LDCT screening for multiple diseases is absent. Most studies suggest LDCT screening is cost-effective for current and former smokers aged 55-74 with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking history. Consequently, more evidence on LDCT is needed to support further cost-effectiveness analyses. Preferably evidence on simultaneous screening for multiple diseases is needed, but alternatively, on single-disease screening.

REGISTRATION OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews registration CRD42021290228 can be accessed https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=290228 .

EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

EarlyCDT Lung (Oncimmune Holdings plc, Nottingham, UK) is a blood test to assess malignancy risk in people with solid pulmonary nodules. It measures the presence of seven lung cancer-associated autoantibodies. Elevated levels of these autoantibodies may indicate malignant disease. The results of the test might be used to modify the risk of malignancy estimated by existing risk calculators, including the Brock and Herder models.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EarlyCDT Lung; and to develop a conceptual model and identify evidence requirements for a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database ( NHS EED ) and the international Health Technology Assessment database were searched on 8 March 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was performed of evidence on EarlyCDT Lung, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Study quality was assessed with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Evidence on other components of the pulmonary nodule diagnostic pathway (computerised tomography surveillance, Brock risk, Herder risk, positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and biopsy) was also reviewed. When feasible, bivariate meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using EarlyCDT Lung. Additional reviews of cost-effectiveness studies evaluated (1) other diagnostic strategies for lung cancer and (2) screening approaches for lung cancer. A conceptual model was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 clinical publications on EarlyCDT Lung were identified, but only five cohorts (695 patients) reported diagnostic accuracy data on patients with pulmonary nodules. All cohorts were small or at high risk of bias. EarlyCDT Lung on its own was found to have poor diagnostic accuracy, with a summary sensitivity of 20.2% (95% confidence interval 10.5% to 35.5%) and specificity of 92.2% (95% confidence interval 86.2% to 95.8%). This sensitivity was substantially lower than that estimated by the manufacturer (41.3%). No evidence on the clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung was identified. The simulation study suggested that EarlyCDT Lung might potentially have some benefit when considering intermediate risk nodules (10-70% risk) after Herder risk analysis. Two cost-effectiveness studies on EarlyCDT Lung for pulmonary nodules were identified; none was considered suitable to inform the current decision problem. The conceptualisation process identified three core components for a future cost-effectiveness assessment of EarlyCDT Lung: (1) the features of the subpopulations and relevant heterogeneity, (2) the way EarlyCDT Lung test results affect subsequent clinical management decisions and (3) how changes in these decisions can affect outcomes. All reviewed studies linked earlier diagnosis to stage progression and stage shift to final outcomes, but evidence on these components was sparse.

LIMITATIONS

The evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules was very limited, preventing meta-analyses and economic analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules is insufficient to draw any firm conclusions as to its diagnostic accuracy or clinical or economic value.

FUTURE WORK

Prospective cohort studies, in which EarlyCDT Lung is used among patients with identified pulmonary nodules, are required to support a future assessment of the clinical and economic value of this test. Studies should investigate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung in combination with Brock and Herder risk assessments. A well-designed cost-effectiveness study is also required, integrating emerging relevant evidence with the recommendations in this report.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021242248.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Does health economics research align with the disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa region? A systematic review of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions

INTRODUCTION

Economic evaluation studies demonstrate the value of money in health interventions and enhance the efficiency of the healthcare system. Therefore, this study reviews published economic evaluation studies of public health interventions from 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries and examines whether they addressed the region's major health problems.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were utilized to search for relevant articles published up to June 26, 2021. The reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 61 studies. Approximately half (28 studies; 46%) were conducted in Israel and Iran. The main areas of interest for economic evaluation studies were infectious diseases (21 studies; 34%), cancers (13 studies; 21%), and genetic disorders (nine studies; 15%). Five (8%), 39 (64%), 16 (26%), and one (2%) studies were classified as excellent, high, average, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of CHEERS checklist items reported was 80.8% (SD 14%). Reporting the structure and justification of the selected model was missed in 21 studies (37%), while price and conversion rates and the analytical methods were missed in 21 studies (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions in the MENA region remains low; however, the overall quality is high to excellent. There were obvious geographic gaps across countries regarding the number and quality of studies and gaps within countries concerning disease prioritization. The observed research output, however, did not reflect current and upcoming disease burden and risk factors trends in the MENA region.

Variation in Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVES

There is significant heterogeneity in the results of published model-based economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. We sought to understand and demonstrate how these models differ.

METHODS

An expansion and update of a previous systematic review (N = 19). Databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Studies were included if strategies involving (single or multiple) LDCT screening were compared with no screening or other imaging modalities, in a population at risk of lung cancer. More detailed data extraction of studies from the previous review was conducted. Studies were critically appraised using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list.

RESULTS

A total of 16 new studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total of 35 studies. There are geographic and temporal differences and differences in screening intervals and eligible populations. Studies varied in the types of models used, for example, decision tree, Markov, and microsimulation models. Most conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (using life-years gained) or cost-utility analysis. The potential for overdiagnosis was considered in many models, unlike with other potential consequences of screening. Some studies report considering lead-time bias, but fewer mention length bias. Generally, the more recent studies, involving more complex modeling, tended to meet more of the critical appraisal criteria, with notable exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many differences across the economic evaluations contributing to variation in estimates of the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Several methodological factors and evidence needs have been highlighted that will require consideration in future economic evaluations to achieve better agreement.

Considering lead-time bias in evaluating the effectiveness of lung cancer screening with real-world data

Low-dose computed tomography screening can be used to diagnose lung cancer at a younger age compared to no screening. Real-world studies observing mortality after lung cancer diagnosis are subject to lead-time bias. This study developed a method using a nationwide cancer registry and stage shift from trial for the adjustment of lead-time bias. 78,897 Taiwanese nationwide lung cancer patients aged 55–82 were matched with 788,820 referents randomly selected from the general population at a ratio of 1:10 by age, sex, calendar year, and comorbidities, to estimate the pathology- and stage-specific life expectancy (LE). Loss-of-LE is the difference between the LE of cancer patients and that of referents. By multiplying LE and loss-of-LE by the pathology and stage shift in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), we compared the effectiveness of cancer screening measured by LE gained and loss-of-LE saved. The mean LEs of stage IA and IV adenocarcinoma were 14.5 and 1.9 years, respectively, indicating a LE gain of 12.6 years. However, the mean loss-of-LEs of stage IA and IV adenocarcinoma were 3.7 and 15.1 years, respectively, with a saving of only 11.4 years, implying an adjustment of different distributions of age, sex, and calendar year of diagnosis from stage shift and a reduction in lead-time bias. Applying such estimations on the results of 10,000 participants with the same pathology and stage shift in the NLST, the benefit of screening using LE gained would be 410.3 (95% prediction interval: 328.4 to 503.3) years. It became 297.1 (95% prediction interval: 187.8 to 396.4) years when using loss-of-LE saved, indicating the former approach would overestimate the effectiveness by 38%. Our approach of multiplying loss-of-LE by pathology and stage shift to estimate loss-of-LE saved could adjust for different distributions of age, sex, and calendar year at early diagnosis and reduce lead-time bias.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in an Iranian high-risk population

OBJECTIVE

The results of recent studies have shown that using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for screening of lung cancer (LC) improves cancer outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT in an Iranian high-risk population.

METHODS

A Markov cohort simulation model with four health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT from a healthcare system perspective in the people aged 55-74 who smoked 25 or more cigarettes per day for 10-30 years. Cost data were collected, reviewing 324 medical records of patients with LC, and utilities and transition probabilities were extracted from the literature. The Monte Carlo simulation method was applied to run the model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

LC screening in comparison to a no-screening strategy was costly and effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening versus no-screening was IRR (Iranian rials) 98,515,014.04 which falls below the Iranian threshold of three times GDP (gross domestic product) per capita. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of the economic analysis were robust to variations in the key inputs for both.

CONCLUSIONS

Using LDCT for screening of LC patients in a high-risk population is a cost-effective strategy.

Lung cancer screening: who pays? Who receives? The European perspectives

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and its early detection is critical to achieving a curative treatment and to reducing mortality. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a highly sensitive technique for detecting noninvasive small lung tumors in high-risk populations. We here analyze the current status of lung cancer screening (LCS) from a European point of view. With economic burden of health care in most European countries resting on the state, it is important to reduce costs of screening and improve its effectiveness. Current cost-effectiveness analyses on LCS have indicated a favorable economic profile. The most recently published analysis reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,297 per 1 life-year gained adjusted for the quality of life (QALY) and €2,944 per life-year gained, demonstrating a 90% probability of ICER being below €15,000 and a 98.1% probability of being below €25,000. Different risk models have been used to identify the target population; among these, the PLCOM2012 in particular allows for the selection of the population to be screened with high sensitivity. Risk models should also be employed to define screening intervals, which can reduce the general number of LDCT scans after the baseline round. Future perspectives of screening in a European scenario are related to the will of the policy makers to implement policy on a large scale and to improve the effectiveness of a broad screening of smoking-related disease, including cardiovascular prevention, by measuring coronary calcium score on LDCT. The employment of artificial intelligence (AI) in imaging interpretation, the use of liquid biopsies for the characterization of CT-detected undetermined nodules, and less invasive, personalized surgical treatments, will improve the effectiveness of LCS.

Cost-effectiveness of a low-dose computed tomography screening programme for lung cancer in New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

The cost-effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is uncertain. This study estimated the health gains, costs (net health system, and including 'unrelated') and cost-effectiveness of biennial LDCT screening among 55-74 years olds with a smoking history of at least 30 pack years, and (if a former smoker) having quit within last 15 years, in New Zealand.

METHODS

We used a macrosimulation stage shift model with New Zealand-specific lung cancer incidence rates and intervention parameters from the National Lung Screening Trial, a health system perspective, and a lifetime horizon for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs discounted at 3% per annum. We also examined heterogeneity by gender, ethnicity (Māori (indigenous population) versus non-Māori), age and smoking status.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We estimated 0.067 QALYs gained (95 % uncertainty interval (UI) 0.044 to 0.095) per eligible participant, at a cost of US$2843 ($2067-3797; 2011 $US). The overall incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$44,000 per QALY gained (95 % UI US$27,000 to US$70,000). The ICER was substantially lower for Māori, at US$26,000 per QALY gained (95 % UI US$17,000 to US$39,000). The cost-effectiveness varied by socio-demographics, from US$21,000 for 70-74 year old Māori females to US$60,000 for 55-59 year old non-Māori males. The two scenarios that lowered the ICER the most were halving the screening costs (ICER = US$33,000 per QALY), and improving the sensitivity (from 93.8% to 98%) and specificity (from 73.4% to 95%) of the screening test (ICER = US$23,000 per QALY). Based on a threshold of GDP per capita per QALY gained (i.e. US$30,000), LDCT screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective in New Zealand for the proposed target population under our modelling assumptions. However, it is likely to be cost-effective for Māori, a population group which carries a disproportionately high disease burden from lung cancer.

Favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for lung cancer screening in Italy

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer detection by low-dose computed tomographic screening reduces mortality. However, it is essential to assess cost-effectiveness. We present a cost-effectiveness analysis of screening in Italians at high risk of lung cancer, from the point of view of the Italian tax-payer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a decision model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of annual screening for 5 years in smokers (≥30 pack-years) of 55-79 years. Patients diagnosed in the COSMOS study were the screening arm; patients diagnosed and treated for lung cancer in the Lombardy Region, Italy, constituted the usual care arm. Treatment costs were extracted from our hospital database. Lung cancer survival in screened patients was adjusted for 2-year lead-time bias. Life-years and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated by stage at diagnosis, from which incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per life-year and quality-adjusted life-year gained were estimated.

RESULTS

Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 3297 and 2944 euro per quality-adjusted life-year and life-year gained, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that these values were particularly sensitive to lung cancer prevalence, screening sensitivity and specificity, screening cost, and treatment costs for stage I and IV disease. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis incremental cost-effectiveness ratios had a 98 % probability of being <25,000 euro (widely-accepted threshold) and a 55 % probability of being <5000 euro.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose computed tomographic screening is associated with an incremental cost of 2944 euro per life-year gained in high risk population, implying that screening can be introduced in Italy at contained cost, saving the lives of many lung cancer patients.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.

RESULTS

Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.

FUTURE WORK

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The cost-effectiveness of the Manchester 'lung health checks', a community-based lung cancer low-dose CT screening pilot

BACKGROUND

Previous evaluations of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening programmes have taken very different approaches in the design of the informative trials and the methods applied to determine cost-effectiveness. Therefore, it has not been possible to determine if differences in cost-effectiveness are due to different screening approaches or the evaluation methodology. This study reports the findings of an evaluation of the first round of a community-based, LDCT screening pilot Manchester, applying previously published methodology to ensure consistency.

METHODS

Using the economic evaluation method reported in the UKLS trial, applying Manchester specific evidence where possible, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT for lung cancer. Estimates of the total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The Manchester programme cost £663,076, diagnosed 42 patients with lung cancer resulting in a gain in population health of 88.13 discounted life years, equivalent to 65.85 QALYs. This implied an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,069/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

We found the Manchester programme to be a cost-effective use of limited NHS resources. The findings suggest that further research is now needed not as to whether LDCT screening is cost-effective but under what conditions can it improve patient health by the most while remaining cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of a low-dose computed tomography screening programme for lung cancer in New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

The cost-effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is uncertain. This study estimated the health gains, costs (net health system, and including 'unrelated') and cost-effectiveness of biennial LDCT screening among 55-74 years olds with a smoking history of at least 30 pack years, and (if a former smoker) having quit within last 15 years, in New Zealand.

METHODS

We used a macrosimulation stage shift model with New Zealand-specific lung cancer incidence rates and intervention parameters from the National Lung Screening Trial, a health system perspective, and a lifetime horizon for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs discounted at 3% per annum. We also examined heterogeneity by gender, ethnicity (Māori (indigenous population) versus non-Māori), age and current versus ex-smoking status.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We estimated 0.037 QALYs gained (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 0.024-0.053) per eligible participant, at a cost of US$3606 ($2689-4681). The overall incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$104,000 per QALY gained (95% UI US$59,000-US$175,000). The cost-effectiveness varied moderately by socio-demographics, with the 'best' ICER being US$52,000 for 70-74 year old Māori females and the 'worst' ICER being US$142,000 for 55-59 year old non-Māori females. The ICER varied little by current smoking status, due to higher competing mortality risk limiting QALY gains for current smokers. The two scenarios that lowered the ICER the most were increasing the screening uptake to 100% (ICER = US$50,000 per QALY), and improving the sensitivity (from 93.8%-98%) and specificity (from 73.4%-95%) of the screening test (ICER = US$42,000 per QALY). Based on a threshold of GDP per capita per QALY gained (i.e. US$30,000), LDCT screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective in New Zealand for any sociodemographic group.

Trade-off between benefits, harms and economic efficiency of low-dose CT lung cancer screening: a microsimulation analysis of nodule management strategies in a population-based setting

BACKGROUND

In lung cancer screening, a nodule management protocol describes nodule assessment and thresholds for nodule size and growth rate to identify patients who require immediate diagnostic evaluation or additional imaging exams. The Netherlands-Leuvens Screening Trial and the National Lung Screening Trial used different selection criteria and nodule management protocols. Several modelling studies have reported variations in screening outcomes and cost-effectiveness across selection criteria and screening intervals; however, the effect of variations in the nodule management protocol remains uncertain. This study evaluated the effects of the eligibility criteria and nodule management protocols on the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of lung screening scenarios in a population-based setting in Germany.

METHODS

We developed a modular microsimulation model: a biological module simulated individual histories of lung cancer development from carcinogenesis onset to death; a screening module simulated patient selection, screening-detection, nodule management protocols, diagnostic evaluation and screening outcomes. Benefits included mortality reduction, life years gained and averted lung cancer deaths. Harms were costs, false positives and overdiagnosis. The comparator was no screening. The evaluated 76 screening scenarios included variations in selection criteria and thresholds for nodule size and growth rate.

RESULTS

Five years of annual screening resulted in a 9.7-12.8% lung cancer mortality reduction in the screened population. The efficient scenarios included volumetric assessment of nodule size, a threshold for a volume of 300 mm³ and a threshold for a volume doubling time of 400 days. Assessment of volume doubling time is essential for reducing overdiagnosis and false positives. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the efficient scenarios were 16,754-23,847 euro per life year gained and 155,287-285,630 euro per averted lung cancer death.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer screening can be cost-effective in Germany. Along with the eligibility criteria, the nodule management protocol influences screening performance and cost-effectiveness. Definition of the thresholds for nodule size and nodule growth in the nodule management protocol should be considered in detail when defining optimal screening strategies.

The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer risk prediction models have the potential to make programs more affordable; however, the economic evidence is limited.

METHODS

Participants in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) were retrospectively identified with the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The high-risk subgroup was assessed for lung cancer incidence and demographic characteristics compared with those in the low-risk subgroup and the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan), which is an observational study that was high-risk-selected in Canada. A comparison of high-risk screening versus standard care was made with a decision-analytic model using data from the NLST with Canadian cost data from screening and treatment in the PanCan study. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty and identify drivers of program efficiency.

RESULTS

Use of the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial with a threshold set at 2% over 6 years would have reduced the number of individuals who needed to be screened in the NLST by 81%. High-risk screening participants in the NLST had more adverse demographic characteristics than their counterparts in the PanCan study. High-risk screening would cost $20,724 (in 2015 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained with a probability of 0.62. Cost-effectiveness was driven primarily by non-lung cancer outcomes. Higher noncurative drug costs or current costs for immunotherapy and targeted therapies in the United States would render lung cancer screening a cost-saving intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-lung cancer outcomes drive screening efficiency in diverse, tobacco-exposed populations. Use of risk selection can reduce the budget impact, and screening may even offer cost savings if noncurative treatment costs continue to rise.

Cost-effectiveness of implementing computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

A screening program for lung cancer requires more empirical evidence. Based on the experience of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), we developed a method to adjust lead-time bias and quality-of-life changes for estimating the cost-effectiveness of implementing computed tomography (CT) screening in Taiwan.

METHODS

The target population was high-risk (≥30 pack-years) smokers between 55 and 75 years of age. From a nation-wide, 13-year follow-up cohort, we estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), loss-of-QALE, and lifetime healthcare expenditures per case of lung cancer stratified by pathology and stage. Cumulative stage distributions for CT-screening and no-screening were assumed equal to those for CT-screening and radiography-screening in the NLST to estimate the savings of loss-of-QALE and additional costs of lifetime healthcare expenditures after CT screening. Costs attributable to screen-negative subjects, false-positive cases and radiation-induced lung cancer were included to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the public payer's perspective.

RESULTS

The incremental costs were US$22,755 per person. After dividing this by savings of loss-of-QALE (1.16 quality-adjusted life year (QALY)), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$19,683 per QALY. This ratio would fall to US$10,947 per QALY if the stage distribution for CT-screening was the same as that of screen-detected cancers in the NELSON trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose CT screening for lung cancer among high-risk smokers would be cost-effective in Taiwan. As only about 5% of our women are smokers, future research is necessary to identify the high-risk groups among non-smokers and increase the coverage.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Strategies Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to deliver appreciable reductions in mortality in high-risk patients. However, in an era of constrained medical resources, the cost-effectiveness of such a program needs to be demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature analyzing the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening using LDCT.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews-Health Technology Assessment, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Due to technological progress in CT, we limited our search to studies published between January 2000 and December 2014. Our search returned 393 unique results. After removing studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria, 13 studies remained. Costs are presented in 2014 US dollars (US$).

RESULTS

The results from the economic evaluations identified in this review were varied. All identified studies reported outcomes using either additional survival (life-years gained) or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs gained). Results ranged from US$18,452 to US$66,480 per LYG and US$27,756 to US$243,077 per QALY gained for repeated screening. The results of cost-effectiveness analyses were sensitive to several key model parameters, including the prevalence of lung cancer, cost of LDCT for screening, the proportion of lung cancer detected as localized disease, lead time bias, and, if included, the characteristics of a smoking cessation program.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening program using LDCT remains to be conclusively resolved. It is expected that its cost-effectiveness will largely depend on identifying an appropriate group of high-risk subjects.

The UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of low-dose computed tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer kills more people than any other cancer in the UK (5-year survival < 13%). Early diagnosis can save lives. The USA-based National Lung Cancer Screening Trial reported a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% all-cause mortality in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-screened subjects.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) analyse LDCT lung cancer screening in a high-risk UK population, determine optimum recruitment, screening, reading and care pathway strategies; and (2) assess the psychological consequences and the health-economic implications of screening.

DESIGN

A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care. A population-based risk questionnaire identified individuals who were at high risk of developing lung cancer (≥ 5% over 5 years).

SETTING

Thoracic centres with expertise in lung cancer imaging, respiratory medicine, pathology and surgery: Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Merseyside, and Papworth Hospital, Cambridgeshire.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 50-75 years, at high risk of lung cancer, in the primary care trusts adjacent to the centres.

INTERVENTIONS

A thoracic LDCT scan. Follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans as per protocol. Referral to multidisciplinary team clinics was determined by nodule size criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Population-based recruitment based on risk stratification; management of the trial through web-based database; optimal characteristics of CT scan readers (radiologists vs. radiographers); characterisation of CT-detected nodules utilising volumetric analysis; prevalence of lung cancer at baseline; sociodemographic factors affecting participation; psychosocial measures (cancer distress, anxiety, depression, decision satisfaction); and cost-effectiveness modelling.

RESULTS

A total of 247,354 individuals were approached to take part in the trial; 30.7% responded positively to the screening invitation. Recruitment of participants resulted in 2028 in the CT arm and 2027 in the control arm. A total of 1994 participants underwent CT scanning: 42 participants (2.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer; 36 out of 42 (85.7%) of the screen-detected cancers were identified as stage 1 or 2, and 35 (83.3%) underwent surgical resection as their primary treatment. Lung cancer was more common in the lowest socioeconomic group. Short-term adverse psychosocial consequences were observed in participants who were randomised to the intervention arm and in those who had a major lung abnormality detected, but these differences were modest and temporary. Rollout of screening as a service or design of a full trial would need to address issues of outreach. The health-economic analysis suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective but this needs to be confirmed using data on actual lung cancer mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot was successfully undertaken with 4055 randomised individuals. The data from the UKLS provide evidence that adds to existing data to suggest that lung cancer screening in the UK could potentially be implemented in the 60-75 years age group, selected via the Liverpool Lung Project risk model version 2 and using CT volumetry-based management protocols.

FUTURE WORK

The UKLS data will be pooled with the NELSON (Nederlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek: Dutch-Belgian Randomised Lung Cancer Screening Trial) and other European Union trials in 2017 which will provide European mortality and cost-effectiveness data. For now, there is a clear need for mortality results from other trials and further research to identify optimal methods of implementation and delivery. Strategies for increasing uptake and providing support for underserved groups will be key to implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78513845.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computerised tomography of the chest in Poland

Aim of the study

To determine the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer (LC) screening with low-dose computerised tomography of the chest, as compared to an approach without screening, reimbursed today by the National Health Fund (NHF) in Poland.

Material and methods

In order to analyse the current costs of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of a model LC patient treated today, a model group consisting of 199 consecutive patients diagnosed and treated in the Oncology Centre in Bydgoszcz, Poland from January 2007 to April 2010 was used. The number and type of performed procedures in this group was obtained from the Polish Register of Neoplasms and the NHF. Only direct medical costs were analysed. To calculate the total costs of screening, diagnostics, and treatment of the hypothetical LC patient who would have cancer diagnosed with screening CT, data from the literature and costs calculated for the model group were used. Prices of procedures were obtained from the price list of the NHF on 30 April 2010 and did not change from that time until June 2014. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed.

Results

The average cost per LC patient, diagnosed and treated without screening, is 5567.50 EUR, and median LC-specific survival is one year. In the hypothetical LC patient with cancer diagnosed by screening, the average cost is 13689.35 EUR per LC patient, with a median LC-specific survival of at least seven years. A calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 1353.64 EUR/year of life gained.

Conclusions

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT would be highly cost-effective in Poland.

Why and how would we implement a lung cancer screening program?

For decades, lung cancer has been the most common cancer in terms of both incidence and mortality. There has been very little improvement in the prognosis of lung cancer. Early treatment following early diagnosis is considered to have potential for development. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large, well-designed randomized controlled trial, evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as a screening tool for lung cancer. Compared with chest X-ray, annual LDCT screening reduced death from lung cancer and overall mortality by 20 and 6.7 %, respectively, in high-risk people aged 55–74 years. Several smaller trials of LDCT screening are under way, but none are sufficiently powered to detect a 20 % reduction in lung cancer death. Thus, it is very unlikely that the NLST results will be replicated. In addition, the NLST raises several issues related to screening, such as the high false-positive rate, overdiagnosis and cost. Healthcare providers and systems are now left with the question of whether the available findings should be translated into practice. We present the main reasons for implementing lung cancer screening in high-risk adults and discuss the main issues related to lung cancer screening. We stress the importance of eligibility criteria, smoking cessation programs, primary care physicians, and informed-decision making should lung cancer screening be implemented. Seven years ago, we were waiting for the results of trials. Such evidence is now available. Similar to almost all other cancer screens, uncertainties exist and persist even after recent scientific efforts and data. We believe that by staying within the characteristics of the original trial and appropriately sharing the evidence as well as the uncertainties, it is reasonable to implement a LDCT lung cancer screening program for smokers and former smokers.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

On 31 December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force rated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening as level 'B' recommendation. Yet, lung cancer screening implementation remains controversial, particularly when considering its cost-effectiveness. The aim of this work is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening program for lung cancer by performing a systematic literature review.

METHODS

We reviewed the published economic evaluations of LDCT in lung cancer screening. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched for literature retrieval up to 31 March 2015. Inclusion criteria included: studies reporting an original full economic evaluation; reports presenting the outcomes as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained or as Life Years Gained.

RESULTS

Nine economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All the cost-effectiveness analyses included high risk populations for lung cancer and compared the use of annual LDCT screening with no screening. Seven studies reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the threshold of US$ 100 000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer is an highly debatable issue. Currently available economic evaluations suggest the cost-effectiveness of LDCT for lung cancer screening compared with no screening and indicate that the implementation of LDCT should be considered when planning a national lung cancer screening program. Additional economic evaluations, especially from a societal perspective and in an EU-setting, are needed.

Screening for lung cancer with chest computerized tomography: Is it cost efficient?

Despite lung cancer (LC) screening by low-dose computerized tomography (LDCT) gaining many proponents worldwide, for many years it was not recognized as a life-prolonging and cost-effective procedure, until recently. Prospective observational studies had not been able to prove that this screening prolongs survival, but they helped to specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Long-awaited results of a prospective, randomized trial finally provided the evidence that LC screening with LDCT can prolong survival of the screened population. Several cost-effectiveness analyses were performed to justify mass introduction of this screening. Results of these analyses are equivocal, although conclusions highly depend upon inclusion and exclusion criteria, methods of analysis and prices of medical procedures which differ between countries as well as the incidence of other pulmonary nodules, especially tuberculosis. Therefore, cost-effectiveness analysis should be performed separately for every country. Cost-effectiveness depends especially upon the rate of false-positive results and the rate of unnecessary diagnostic, screening and treatment procedures. To ensure high cost-effectiveness, LC screening should be performed in accordance with screening protocol, in dedicated screening centers equipped with nodule volume change analysis, or as a prospective non-randomized trial, to ensure compliance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To ensure high cost-effectiveness of LC screening, future research should concentrate on determination of high-risk groups and further specifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Implementation of lung cancer screening: promises and hurdles

Lung cancer screening is a subject of considerable interest in the medical community and the general population. Since the publication of the data from the national lung screening trial (NLST) in 2011, the interest in lung cancer screening has increased even more. Data from many sources provide evidence that low-dose computed tomography (LD-CT) lung cancer screening can be performed with even greater efficacy if inclusion criteria as well as nodule management are optimized. There are, however, also a number of potential hurdles for the implementation of lung cancer screening. Among these are, in particular, the high prevalence of screen-detected pulmonary nodules, the unknown extent of over-diagnosis, the potential harms of the cumulative radiation dose and the insufficient data on cost-efficiency of lung cancer screening. In this article, the most recent insights into some of the most imminent questions are reviewed to provide an understanding of the challenges we still face in lung cancer screening.

A meta-analysis: is low-dose computed tomography a superior method for risky lung cancers screening population?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been proposed to be a new screening method to discover lung cancers in an early stage, especially those patients who are in a high risk of lung cancer. The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to systematically review the effect of LDCT on screening for lung cancers among the risky population who are older than 49 years old and with smoking exposure.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) about comparing LDCT and chest X-ray or usual caring from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge and SpringerLink databases (January 1994 to September 2013).

RESULTS

Nine RCTs met criteria for inclusion. Screening for lung cancer using LDCT resulted in a significantly higher number of stage I lung cancers [odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88-2.47], higher number of total lung cancers (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20-1.43) than the control. Four of the nine studies indicated that the screening method did not decrease all-cause mortality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.02), but decreased lung cancer-specific mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.96). Five studies showed that LDCT had higher false-positive rates (OR 8.7, 95% CI 7.43-10.19) than the group of control.

CONCLUSION

Among the risky population, LDCT screening find out more stage I lung cancers and total lung cancers compared with chest X-ray or no screening, and also shows advantages in decreasing lung cancer-specific mortality, but the screening method does not decrease all-cause mortality and have a higher false-positive rates in diagnosis.