Outcomes and cost of lung cancer patients treated surgically or medically in Catalunya: cost-benefit implications for lung cancer screening programs

Lung cancer screening in Brazil: recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, Brazilian Thoracic Association, and Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging

Although lung cancer (LC) is one of the most common and lethal tumors, only 15% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage. Smoking is still responsible for more than 85% of cases. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) reduces LC-related mortality by 20%, and that reduction reaches 38% when LCS by LDCT is combined with smoking cessation. In the last decade, a number of countries have adopted population-based LCS as a public health recommendation. Albeit still incipient, discussion on this topic in Brazil is becoming increasingly broad and necessary. With the aim of increasing knowledge and stimulating debate on LCS, the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, the Brazilian Thoracic Association, and the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging convened a panel of experts to prepare recommendations for LCS in Brazil. The recommendations presented here were based on a narrative review of the literature, with an emphasis on large population-based studies, systematic reviews, and the recommendations of international guidelines, and were developed after extensive discussion by the panel of experts. The following topics were reviewed: reasons for screening; general considerations about smoking; epidemiology of LC; eligibility criteria; incidental findings; granulomatous lesions; probabilistic models; minimum requirements for LDCT; volumetric acquisition; risks of screening; minimum structure and role of the multidisciplinary team; practice according to the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System; costs versus benefits of screening; and future perspectives for LCS.

A look ahead to promote the early detection of lung cancer: technical and cost implications of a confirmed diagnosis before surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs and length of hospital stay among patients with a confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer (LC) prior to surgery versus those without confirmation.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study was conducted in patients who underwent a surgical procedure for LC, with or without a pathologically confirmed LC diagnosis prior to surgery, between March 2017 and December 2019. The main outcomes were costs and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Among the 269 patients who underwent surgery for lung cancer between March 2017 and December 2019, 203 (75.5%) patients underwent surgery due to a histopathological diagnosis, and 66 (24.5%) because of a Multidisciplinary Cancer Committee indication. The unadjusted mean cost was significantly lower in Group II (patients with surgery based on Multidisciplinary Cancer Committee criteria) (Є2,581.80 ± Є1,002.50) than in Group I (patients with histopathological diagnosis) (Є4,244.60 ± Є2,008.80), P < 0.0001. Once adjusted for covariables, there was a mean difference of -Є1,437.20 in the costs of Group II, P < 0.0001. Unadjusted mean hospital stay was significantly longer in Group I (5.6 days) than in Group II (3.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that indicating surgical resection of lung cancer based on Multidisciplinary Cancer Committee criteria, rather than performing CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy, may result in a significant decrease in cost and length of hospital stay.

Survival and medical costs of non-small cell lung cancer patients according to the first-line treatment: An observational study using the Kyoto City Integrated Database

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the primary cause of cancer mortality and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for the majority of lung cancer cases. New drug treatments have been developed since 2010 but there are concerns about the increase in medical costs. This study aimed to compare survival and medical costs among patients with NSCLC according to their initial treatment to estimate the impact of early NSCLC detection.

METHODS

Patients with primary NSCLC who filed insurance claims between April 2013 and March 2019 were identified using the Kyoto City Integrated Database. Patients were divided into two groups depending on their initial treatment: the resection group and drug or radiation group. The survival and medical costs were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 2609 patients with primary NSCLC were identified. Among them, 1035 patients underwent resection. The 5-year survival was 75% for the resection group while below 25% for the drug or radiation group. At 6 months of survival, the median cumulative total cost was 2409 thousand yen (interquartile range [IQR] 1947-4012 thousand yen) in the resection group and 2951 thousand yen (IQR 1600-4706 thousand yen) in the drug or radiation group. At 4 years of survival, the cumulative median total cost was 5257 thousand yen (IQR 3808-8243 thousand yen) in the resection group and 10 202 thousand yen (IQR 4845-20 450 thousand yen) in the drug or radiation group.

CONCLUSIONS

As a first-line therapy in newly diagnosed patients with NSCLC, surgical resection is associated with longer survival and lower medical costs than pharmacotherapy or radiotherapy.

Changes in Treatment Patterns and Costs for Lung Cancer Have Not Resulted in Relevant Improvements in Survival: A Population-Based Observational Study in Catalonia

OBJECTIVE

Few published studies have described multidisciplinary therapeutic strategies for lung cancer. This study aims to describe the different approaches used for treating lung cancer in Catalonia in 2014 and 2018 and to assess the associated cost and impact on patient survival.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study using data of patients with lung cancer from health care registries in Catalonia was carried out. We analyzed change in treatment patterns, costs and survival according to the year of treatment initiation (2014 vs. 2018). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival, with the follow-up until 2021.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2018, the proportion of patients undergoing surgery increased and treatments for unresectable tumors decreased, mainly in younger patients. Immunotherapy increased by up to 9% by 2018. No differences in patient survival were observed within treatment patterns. The mean cost per patient in the first year of treatment increased from EUR 14,123 (standard deviation [SD] 4327) to EUR 14,550 (SD 3880) in surgical patients, from EUR 4655 (SD 3540) to EUR 5873 (SD 6455) in patients receiving curative radiotherapy and from EUR 4723 (SD 7003) to EUR 6458 (SD 10,116) in those treated for unresectable disease.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2014 to 2018, surgical approaches increased in younger patients. The mean cost of treating patients increased, especially in pharmaceutical expenditure, mainly related to the use of several biomarker-targeted treatments. While no differences in overall patient survival were observed, it seems reasonable to expect improvements in this outcome in upcoming years as more patients receive innovative treatments.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lung cancer screening programme in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of national lung cancer (LC) screening programme (SP) in a high-risk population from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis for a LC SP was carried out on a lifetime horizon. A Markov model was designed that assumed two scenarios, one with the implementation of the SP and another one without it. Effectiveness and cost of LC management, diagnosis and screening were included in the different health states. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate its robustness. A discount rate was set at 3% both for effectiveness and cost.

RESULTS

In the base-case, an increase of 4.80 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) per patient was obtained, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2345/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the national LC SP to be cost-effective in 80% of cases (probability=0.8) for a willingness-to-pay threshold equivalent to the gross domestic product per capita in Spain, which was set at €25 854/QALY in 2018 based on the per capita income of Spain. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the obtained results are robust in terms of changes in the presentation rates and costs, and the cost-effectiveness thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that the implementation of a LC SP in the high-risk Spanish population would be a cost-effective strategy for the Spanish NHS.

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.