A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and a Diagnostic Biomarker

Emerging Strategies in Lung Cancer Screening: Blood and Beyond

BACKGROUND

Although low dose computed tomography (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening (LCS) can decrease lung cancer-related mortality among high-risk individuals, it remains an imperfect and substantially underutilized process. LDCT-based LCS may result in false-positive findings, which can lead to invasive procedures and potential morbidity. Conversely, current guidelines may fail to capture at-risk individuals, particularly those from under-represented minority populations. To address these limitations, numerous biomarkers have emerged to complement LDCT and improve early lung cancer detection.

CONTENT

This review focuses primarily on blood-based biomarkers, including protein, microRNAs, circulating DNA, and methylated DNA panels, in current clinical development for LCS. We also examine other emerging biomarkers-utilizing airway epithelia, exhaled breath, sputum, and urine-under investigation. We highlight challenges and limitations of biomarker testing, as well as recent strategies to integrate molecular strategies with imaging technologies.

SUMMARY

Multiple biomarkers are under active investigation for LCS, either to improve risk-stratification after nodule detection or to optimize risk-based patient selection for LDCT-based screening. Results from ongoing and future clinical trials will elucidate the clinical utility of biomarkers in the LCS paradigm.

Systematic Review of Lung Cancer Screening: Advancements and Strategies for Implementation

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe, with low survival rates primarily due to late-stage diagnosis. Early detection can significantly improve survival rates, but lung cancer screening is not currently implemented in Italy. Many countries have implemented lung cancer screening programs for high-risk populations, with studies showing a reduction in mortality. This review aimed to identify key areas for establishing a lung cancer screening program in Italy. A literature search was conducted in October 2022, using the PubMed and Scopus databases. Items of interest included updated evidence, approaches used in other countries, enrollment and eligibility criteria, models, cost-effectiveness studies, and smoking cessation programs. A literature search yielded 61 scientific papers, highlighting the effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in reducing mortality among high-risk populations. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the United States demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with LDCT, and other trials confirmed its potential to reduce mortality by up to 39% and detect early-stage cancers. However, false-positive results and associated harm were concerns. Economic evaluations generally supported the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, especially when combined with smoking cessation interventions for individuals aged 55 to 75 with a significant smoking history. Implementing a screening program in Italy requires the careful consideration of optimal strategies, population selection, result management, and the integration of smoking cessation. Resource limitations and tailored interventions for subpopulations with low-risk perception and non-adherence rates should be addressed with multidisciplinary expertise.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds.

DESIGN

Comparative modeling analysis.

DATA SOURCES

National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator.

TARGET POPULATION

1960 U.S. birth cohort.

TIME HORIZON

45 years.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%).

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions.

LIMITATION

Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors.

CONCLUSION

Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Clinical Scores, Biomarkers and IT Tools in Lung Cancer Screening-Can an Integrated Approach Overcome Current Challenges?

As most lung cancer (LC) cases are still detected at advanced and incurable stages, there are increasing efforts to foster detection at earlier stages by low dose computed tomography (LDCT) based LC screening. In this scoping review, we describe current advances in candidate selection for screening (selection phase), technical aspects (screening), and probability evaluation of malignancy of CT-detected pulmonary nodules (PN management). Literature was non-systematically assessed and reviewed for suitability by the authors. For the selection phase, we describe current eligibility criteria for screening, along with their limitations and potential refinements through advanced clinical scores and biomarker assessments. For LC screening, we discuss how the accuracy of computerized tomography (CT) scan reading might be augmented by IT tools, helping radiologists to cope with increasing workloads. For PN management, we evaluate the precision of follow-up scans by semi-automatic volume measurements of CT-detected PN. Moreover, we present an integrative approach to evaluate the probability of PN malignancy to enable safe decisions on further management. As a clear limitation, additional validation studies are required for most innovative diagnostic approaches presented in this article, but the integration of clinical risk models, current imaging techniques, and advancing biomarker research has the potential to improve the LC screening performance generally.

Chest CT for Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Background: We report the results of our retrospective analysis of the ability of standard chest CT scans to correctly diagnose cancer in the breast. Methods: Four hundred and fifty-three consecutive women with chest CT scans (contrast and non-contrast) preceding mammograms within one year comprise the study population. All chest CT images were reviewed by an experienced fellowship-trained chest radiologist and mammograms by an experienced fellowship-trained mammographer without the benefit of prior or ancillary studies; only four mammographic views were included for analysis. The size, location, and shape of breast masses were documented; on CT, the average Hounsfield units were measured. On both imaging modalities, the presence of lymphadenopathy, architectural distortion, skin thickening, and microcalcifications were recorded. Ultimately, the interpreting radiologist was asked to decide if a biopsy was indicated, and these recommendations were correlated with the patient’s outcome. Findings: Nineteen of four hundred and fifty-three patients had breast cancer at the time of the mammography. Breast masses were the most common finding on chest CT, leading to the recommendation for biopsy. Hounsfield units were the most important feature for discerning benign from malignant masses. CT sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT for breast cancer detection was 84.21%, 99.3%, and 98.68% compared to 78.95%, 93.78%, and 93.16% for four-view mammography. Chest CT scans with or without contrast had similar outcomes for specificity and accuracy, but sensitivity was slightly less without contrast. Chest CT alone, without the benefit of prior exams and patient recall, correctly diagnosed cancer with a p-value of <0.0001 compared to mammography with the same limitations. Conclusion: Chest CT accurately diagnosed breast cancer with few false positives and negatives and did so without the need for patient recall for additional imaging.

Biomarker-Based Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: Implementation Considerations

With the convergence of promising biomarkers for lung cancer risk stratifications, and the increasing need for better eligibility assessment for lung cancer low-dose CT (LDCT) screening, the elephant in the room now is whether and how the implementation of biomarker-based lung cancer screening eligibility can be successfully achieved. This brief commentary provides an outline of key considerations for biomarker implementations for LDCT eligibility assessment and possible mitigation strategies. See related article by Jacobsen et al., p. 758.