1
|
Liu Y, Xu H, Lv L, Wang X, Kang R, Guo X, Wang H, Zheng L, Liu H, Guo L, Chen Q, Liu S, Qiao Y, Zhang S. Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study. BMC Med 2024; 22:73. [PMID: 38369461 PMCID: PMC10875747 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03292-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2024] [Indexed: 02/20/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Annual screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for heavy smokers. However, it is questionable whether all individuals require annual screening given the potential harms of LDCT screening. This study examines the benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening in heavy smokers and determines the optimal risk threshold for screening and risk-stratified screening intervals. METHODS We conducted a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis in China, using a cohort-based Markov model which simulated a lung cancer screening cohort of 19,146 heavy smokers aged 50 ~ 74 years old, who had a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and were either current smokers or had quit for < 15 years. A total of 34 risk-based screening strategies, varying by different risk groups for screening eligibility and screening intervals (1-year, 2-year, 3-year, one-off, non-screening), were evaluated and were compared with annual screening for all heavy smokers (the status quo strategy). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective with a 30-year time horizon. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was adopted as three times the gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 2021 (CNY 242,928) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS Compared with the status quo strategy, nine risk-based screening strategies were found to be cost-effective, with two of them even resulting in cost-saving. The most cost-effective strategy was the risk-based approach of annual screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of ≥ 1.70%, biennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of 1.03 ~ 1.69%, and triennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of < 1.03%. This strategy had the highest incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of CNY 1032. All risk-based screening strategies were more efficient than the status quo strategy, requiring 129 ~ 656 fewer screenings per lung cancer death avoided, and 0.5 ~ 28 fewer screenings per life-year gained. The cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening was further improved when individual adherence to screening improved and individuals quit smoking after being screened. CONCLUSIONS Risk-based screening strategies are more efficient in reducing lung cancer deaths and gaining life years compared to the status quo strategy. Risk-stratified screening intervals can potentially balance long-term benefit-harm trade-offs and improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screenings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yin Liu
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Huifang Xu
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Lihong Lv
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Xiaoyang Wang
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Ruihua Kang
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Xiaoli Guo
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Hong Wang
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Liyang Zheng
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Hongwei Liu
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Lanwei Guo
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Qiong Chen
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Shuzheng Liu
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China
| | - Youlin Qiao
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China.
- Center for Global Health, School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100005, China.
| | - Shaokai Zhang
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, 450008, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Emmerick ICM, Campos MR, Castanheira D, Muzy J, Marques A, Arueira Chaves L, Sobreira da Silva MJ. Lung Cancer Screening in Brazil Comparing the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF Guidelines. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2346994. [PMID: 38079172 PMCID: PMC10714246 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46994] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2023] [Accepted: 10/27/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance It is estimated that, from 2023 to 2025, lung cancer (LC) will be the second most frequent cancer in Brazil, but the country does not have an LC screening (LCS) policy. Objective To compare the number of individuals eligible for screening, 5-year preventable LC deaths, and years of life gained (YLG) if LC death is averted by LCS, considering 3 eligibility strategies by sociodemographic characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative effectiveness research study assessed 3 LCS criteria by applying a modified version of the LC-Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT) and the LC-Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT). Data are from the 2019 Brazilian National Household Survey. Participants included ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years. Data analysis was performed from February to May 2023. Exposures Exposures included ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 guidelines (ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 years with ≥30 pack-years and <15 years since cessation), and USPSTF 2021 guidelines (ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years with 20 pack-years and <15 years since cessation). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were the numbers of individuals eligible for LCS, the 5-year preventable deaths attributable to LC, and the number of YLGs if death due to LC was averted by LCS. Results In Brazil, the eligible population for LCS was 27 280 920 ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years (13 387 552 female [49.1%]; 13 249 531 [48.6%] aged 50-60 years; 394 994 Asian or Indigenous [1.4%]; 3 111 676 Black [11.4%]; 10 942 640 Pardo [40.1%]; 12 830 904 White [47.0%]; 12 428 536 [45.6%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 12 860 132 [47.1%] living in the Southeast region); 5 144 322 individuals met the USPSTF 2013 criteria for LCS (2 090 636 female [40.6%]; 2 290 219 [44.5%] aged 61-70 years; 66 430 Asian or Indigenous [1.3%]; 491 527 Black [9.6%]; 2 073 836 Pardo [40.3%]; 2 512 529 [48.8%] White; 2 436 221 [47.4%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 2 577 300 [50.1%] living in the Southeast region), and 8 380 279 individuals met the USPSTF 2021 LCS criteria (3 507 760 female [41.9%]; 4 352 740 [51.9%] aged 50-60 years; 119 925 Asian or Indigenous [1.4%]; 839 171 Black [10.0%]; 3 330 497 Pardo [39.7%]; 4 090 687 [48.8%] White; 4 022 784 [48.0%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 4 162 070 [49.7%] living in the Southeast region). The number needed to screen to prevent 1 death was 177 individuals according to the USPSTF 2013 criteria and 242 individuals according to the USPSTF 2021 criteria. The YLG was 23 for all ever-smokers, 19 for the USPSTF 2013 criteria, and 21 for the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Being Black, having less than a high school education, and living in the North and Northeast regions were associated with increased 5-year risk of LC death. Conclusions and Relevance In this comparative effectiveness study, USPSTF 2021 criteria were better than USPSTF 2013 in reducing disparities in LC death rates. Nonetheless, the risk of LC death remained unequal, and these results underscore the importance of identifying an appropriate approach for high-risk populations for LCS, considering the local epidemiological context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mônica Rodrigues Campos
- Departamento de Ciências Sociais, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Debora Castanheira
- Laboratório de Pesquisa Clínica em DST e Aids, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Jessica Muzy
- Laboratório de Informações em Saúde, Instituto de Comunicação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Aline Marques
- Laboratório de Informações em Saúde, Instituto de Comunicação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Luisa Arueira Chaves
- Instituto de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhang T, Chen X, Li C, Wen X, Lin T, Huang J, He J, Zhong N, Jiang J, Liang W. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Risk Factor-Based Lung Cancer Screening Program by Low-Dose Computer Tomography in Current Smokers in China. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4445. [PMID: 37760416 PMCID: PMC10527380 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Revised: 08/10/2023] [Accepted: 08/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Although the effectiveness of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could be shown in China, there could be variation in the evidence concerning the economic impact. Our study explores the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and optimizes the best definition of a high-risk population. A Markov model consisting of the natural history and post-diagnosis states was constructed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of LDCT screening compared with no screening. A total of 36 distinct risk factor-based screening strategies were assessed by incorporating starting ages of 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 years, stopping ages of 69, 74 and 79 years as well as smoking eligibility criteria. Screening data came from community-based mass screening with LDCT for lung cancer in Guangzhou. Compared with no screening, all screening scenarios led to incremental costs and QALYs. When the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was USD37,653, three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China, six of nine strategies on the efficiency frontier may be cost-effective. Annual screening between 55 and 79 years of age for those who smoked more than 20 pack-years, which yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD35,000.00 per QALY gained, was considered optimal. In sensitivity analyses, the result was stable in most cases. The trends of the results are roughly the same in scenario analyses. According to the WTP threshold of different regions, the optimal screening strategies were annual screening for those who smoked more than 20 pack-years, between 50 and 79 years of age in Zhejiang province, 55-79 years in Guangdong province and 65-74 years in Yunnan province. However, annual screening was unlikely to be cost-effective in Heilongjiang province under our modelling assumptions, indicating that tailored screening policies should be made regionally according to the local epidemiological and economic situation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tiantian Zhang
- College of Pharmacy/Guangdong-Hong Kong-Marco Greater Bay Area (GBA), Institue for Real-World Value and Evidence of Drugs and Medical Devices/Southern Institute of Pharmacoeconomics and Health Technology Assessment/International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization and Innovative Drug, Development of Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
- Guangzhou Huabo Biopharmaceutical Research Institute, Guangzhou 510010, China
| | - Xudong Chen
- College of Pharmacy/Guangdong-Hong Kong-Marco Greater Bay Area (GBA), Institue for Real-World Value and Evidence of Drugs and Medical Devices/Southern Institute of Pharmacoeconomics and Health Technology Assessment/International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization and Innovative Drug, Development of Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
| | - Caichen Li
- Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou 510120, China
| | - Xiaoqin Wen
- College of Pharmacy/Guangdong-Hong Kong-Marco Greater Bay Area (GBA), Institue for Real-World Value and Evidence of Drugs and Medical Devices/Southern Institute of Pharmacoeconomics and Health Technology Assessment/International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization and Innovative Drug, Development of Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
| | - Tengfei Lin
- Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen 518000, China
| | - Jiaxing Huang
- Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou 510120, China
| | - Jianxing He
- Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou 510120, China
| | - Nanshan Zhong
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou 510120, China
| | - Jie Jiang
- College of Pharmacy/Guangdong-Hong Kong-Marco Greater Bay Area (GBA), Institue for Real-World Value and Evidence of Drugs and Medical Devices/Southern Institute of Pharmacoeconomics and Health Technology Assessment/International Cooperative Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Modernization and Innovative Drug, Development of Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
| | - Wenhua Liang
- Department of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou 510120, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Behr CM, Oude Wolcherink MJ, IJzerman MJ, Vliegenthart R, Koffijberg H. Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2023; 41:395-411. [PMID: 36670332 PMCID: PMC10020316 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01238-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/27/2022] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
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 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carina M Behr
- Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | | | - Maarten J IJzerman
- Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Managament, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Hendrik Koffijberg
- Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fabbro M, Hahn K, Novaes O, Ó'Grálaigh M, O'Mahony JF. Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review Assessing Strategy Comparison and Risk Stratification. PHARMACOECONOMICS - OPEN 2022; 6:773-786. [PMID: 36040557 PMCID: PMC9596656 DOI: 10.1007/s41669-022-00346-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/23/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Our first study objective was to assess the range of lung cancer screening intervals compared within cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and to examine the implications for the strategies identified as optimally cost effective; the second objective was to examine if and how risk subgroup-specific policies were considered. METHODS PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for model-based CEAs of LDCT lung screening. The retrieved studies were assessed to examine if the analyses considered sufficient strategy variation to permit incremental estimation of cost effectiveness. Regarding risk selection, we examined if analyses considered alternative risk strata in separate analyses or as alternative risk-based eligibility criteria for screening. RESULTS The search identified 33 eligible CEAs, 23 of which only considered one screening frequency. Of the 10 analyses considering multiple screening intervals, only 4 included intervals longer than 2 years. Within the 10 studies considering multiple intervals, the optimal policy choice would differ in 5 if biennial intervals or longer had not been considered. Nineteen studies conducted risk subgroup analyses, 12 of which assumed that subgroup-specific policies were possible and 7 of which assumed that a common screening policy applies to all those screened. CONCLUSIONS The comparison of multiple strategies is recognised as good practice in CEA when seeking optimal policies. Studies that do include multiple intervals indicate that screening intervals longer than 1 year can be relevant. The omission of intervals of 2 years or longer from CEAs of LDCT screening could lead to the adoption of sub-optimal policies. There also is scope for greater consideration of risk-stratified policies which tailor screening intensity to estimated disease risk. Policy makers should take care when interpreting current evidence before implementing lung screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Fabbro
- School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, 2-4 Foster Place, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Kirah Hahn
- School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, 2-4 Foster Place, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Olivia Novaes
- School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, 2-4 Foster Place, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Mícheál Ó'Grálaigh
- School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, 2-4 Foster Place, Dublin, Ireland
| | - James F O'Mahony
- School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, 2-4 Foster Place, Dublin, Ireland.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Grover H, King W, Bhattarai N, Moloney E, Sharp L, Fuller L. Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography. Lung Cancer 2022; 170:20-33. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.05.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Revised: 03/23/2022] [Accepted: 05/10/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
7
|
Ngo PJ, Cressman S, Behar-Harpaz S, Karikios DJ, Canfell K, Weber MF. Applying utility values in cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer screening: a review of methods. Lung Cancer 2022; 166:122-131. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Revised: 02/13/2022] [Accepted: 02/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|