Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model

Health Economic Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Using a Diagnostic Blood Test: The Early Detection of Cancer of the Lung Scotland (ECLS)

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic blood tests have the potential to identify lung cancer in people at high risk. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening intervention, using the EarlyCDT®-Lung Test (ECLS) with subsequent X-ray and low-dose chest CT scans (LDCT) for patients with a positive test result, compared to both usual care and LDCT screening for the target population.

METHODS

We conducted a model-based lifetime analysis from a UK NHS and personal social services perspective. We estimated incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) for the ECLS intervention compared to no screening and to LDCT screening.

RESULTS

The incremental NMB of ECLS intervention compared to no screening was GBP 33,179 (95% CI: -GBP 81,396, GBP 147,180) and GBP 140,609 (95% CI: -GBP 36,255, GBP 316,612), respectively, for a cost-effectiveness threshold of GBP 20,000 and GBP 30,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The same figures compared with LDCT screening were GBP 162,095 (95% CI: GBP 52,698, GBP 271,735) and GBP 52,185 (95% CI: -GBP 115,152, GBP 219,711).

CONCLUSIONS

The ECLS intervention is the most cost-effective screening alternative, with the highest probability of being cost-effective, when compared to no screening or LDCT screening. This result may change with modifications of the parameters, suggesting that the three alternatives considered in the main analysis are potentially cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Risk Factor-Based Lung Cancer Screening Program by Low-Dose Computer Tomography in Current Smokers in China

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.

The value of blood-based measures of liver function and urate in lung cancer risk prediction: A cohort study and health economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported associations between low-cost blood-based measurements and lung cancer but their role in risk prediction is unclear. We examined the value of expanding lung cancer risk models for targeting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), including blood measurements of liver function and urate.

METHODS

We analysed a cohort of 388,199 UK Biobank participants with 1873 events and calculated the c-index and fraction of new information (FNI) for models expanded to include combinations of blood measurements, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s - FEV1), alcohol status and waist circumference. We calculated the hypothetical cost per lung cancer case detected by LDCT for different scenarios using a threshold of ≥ 1.51 % risk at 6 years.

RESULTS

The c-index was 0.805 (95 %CI:0.794-0.816) for the model containing conventional predictors. Expanding to include blood measurements increased the c-index to 0.815 (95 %CI: 0.804-0.826;p < 0.0001;FNI:0.06). Expanding to include FEV1, alcohol status, and waist circumference increased the c-index to 0.811 (95 %CI: 0.800-0.822;p < 0.0001;FNI: 0.04). The c-index for the fully expanded model containing all variables was 0.819 (95 %CI:0.808-0.830;p < 0.0001;FNI:0.09). Model expansion had a greater impact on the c-index and FNI for people with a history of smoking cigarettes relative to the full cohort. Compared with the conventional risk model, the expanded models reduced the number of participants meeting the criteria for LDCT screening by 15-21 %, and lung cancer cases detected by 7-8 %. The additional cost per lung cancer case detected relative to the conventional model was £ 1018 for adding blood tests and £ 9775 for the fully expanded model.

CONCLUSION

Blood measurements of liver function and urate made a modest improvement to lung cancer risk prediction compared with a model containing conventional risk factors. There was no evidence that model expansion would improve the cost per lung cancer case detected in UK healthcare settings.

Important parameters for cost-effective implementation of lung cancer screening

It is now widely accepted that lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results in fewer diagnoses at a late stage, and decreased lung cancer mortality. Whilst reducing deaths from lung cancer is an essential prerequisite, this must be balanced against the considerable economic costs accumulated in screening. Multiple health economic models have shown substantial variation in cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), partly driven by the healthcare costs in the country concerned and partly by other modifiable programme components. Recent modelling using UK costs and a targeted approach suggest that most scenarios are within the willingness to pay threshold for the UK. However, identifying the most clinically and cost-effective programme is a priority to minimise the total financial impact. Programme components that influence cost-effectiveness include the method of selection of the eligible population, the participation rate, the interval between rounds of screening, the method of pulmonary nodule management, and the approach to clinical work up. Future research will clarify if a personalised approach to screening, using baseline and subsequent risk to define screening intervals is more cost-effective. The burden of LDCT screening on the medical infrastructure and workforce has to be quantified and carefully managed during implementation.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review Assessing Strategy Comparison and Risk Stratification

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.

Can we increase efficiency of CT lung cancer screening by combining with CVD and COPD screening? Results of an early economic evaluation

Objectives

Estimating the maximum acceptable cost (MAC) per screened individual for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer (LC) screening, and determining the effect of additionally screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease (CVD), or both on the MAC.

Methods

A model-based early health technology assessment (HTA) was conducted to estimate whether a new intervention could be cost-effective by calculating the MAC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €20k/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and €80k/QALY, for a population of current and former smokers, aged 50–75 years in The Netherlands. The MAC was estimated based on incremental QALYs gained from a stage shift assuming screened individuals are detected in earlier disease stages. Data were obtained from literature and publicly available statistics and validated with experts.

Results

The MAC per individual for implementing LC screening at a WTP of €20k/QALY was €113. If COPD, CVD, or both were included in screening, the MAC increased to €230, €895, or €971 respectively. Scenario analyses assessed whether screening-specific disease high-risk populations would improve cost-effectiveness, showing that high-risk CVD populations were more likely to improve economic viability compared to COPD.

Conclusions

The economic viability of combined screening is substantially larger than for LC screening alone, primarily due to benefits from CVD screening, and is dependent on the target screening population, which is key to optimise the screening program. The total cost of breast and cervical cancer screening is lower (€420) than the MAC of Big-3, indicating that Big-3 screening may be acceptable from a health economic perspective.

Key Points

• Once-off combined low-dose CT screening for lung cancer, COPD, and CVD in individuals aged 50–75 years is potentially cost-effective if screening would cost less than €971 per screened individual.

• Multi-disease screening requires detailed insight into the co-occurrence of these diseases to identify the optimal target screening population.

• With the same target screening population and WTP, lung cancer-only screening should cost less than €113 per screened individual to be cost-effective.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08422-7.

Increasing uptake to a lung cancer screening programme: building with communities through co-design

Background

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake.

Methods

A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data.

Results

In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public.

Conclusion

Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.

Implementing lung cancer screening in Europe: taking a systems approach

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Europe. Screening by means of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can shift detection to an earlier stage and reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals. However, to date, Poland, Croatia, Italy, and Romania are the only European countries to commit to large-scale implementation of targeted LDCT screening. Using a health systems approach, this article evaluates key factors needed to enable the successful implementation of screening programs across Europe. Recent literature on LDCT screening was reviewed for 10 countries (Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom) and complemented by 17 semistructured interviews with local experts. Research findings were mapped against a health systems framework adapted for lung cancer screening. The European policy landscape is highly variable, but potential barriers to implementation are similar across countries and consistent with those reported for other cancer screening programs. While consistent quality and safety of screening must be ensured across all screening centers, system factors are also important. These include appropriate data infrastructure, targeted recruitment methods that ensure equity in participation, sufficient capacity and workforce training, full integration of screening with multidisciplinary care pathways, and smoking cessation programs. Stigma and underlying perceptions of lung cancer as a self-inflicted condition are also important considerations. Building on decades of implementation research, governments now have a unique opportunity to establish effective, efficient, and equitable lung cancer screening programs adapted to their health systems, curbing the impact of lung cancer on their populations.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Evidence from discrete choice experiments can be used to enrich understanding of preferences, inform the (re)design of screening programmes and/or improve communication within public campaigns about the benefits and harms of screening. However, reviews of screening discrete choice experiments highlight significant discrepancies between stated choices and real choices, particularly regarding willingness to undergo cancer screening. The identification and selection of attributes and associated levels is a fundamental component of designing a discrete choice experiment. Misspecification or misinterpretation of attributes may lead to non-compensatory behaviours, attribute non-attendance and responses that lack external validity.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to synthesise evidence on attribute development, alongside an in-depth review of included attributes and methodological challenges, to provide a resource for researchers undertaking future studies in cancer screening.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify discrete choice experiments estimating preferences towards cancer screening, dated between 1990 and December 2020. Data were synthesised narratively. In-depth analysis of attributes led to classification into four categories: test specific, service delivery, outcomes and monetary. Attribute significance and relative importance were also analysed. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included at full text. They covered a range of cancer sites: over half (26/49) examined colorectal screening. Most studies elicited general public preferences (34/49). In total, 280 attributes were included, 90% (252/280) of which were significant. Overall, test sensitivity and mortality reduction were most frequently found to be the most important to respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in reporting the identification, selection and construction of attributes used within cancer screening discrete choice experiments are needed. This review also highlights the importance of considering the complexity of choice tasks when considering risk information or compound attributes. Patient and public involvement and stakeholder engagement are recommended to optimise understanding of unavoidably complex choice tasks throughout the design process. To ensure quality and maximise comparability across studies, further research is needed to develop a risk-of-bias measure for discrete choice experiments.

Cost Utility Analysis of a Pilot Study for the Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost utility of a pilot study of Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project.

Materials and Methods

We constructed a Markov model consisting of 26 states based on the natural history of lung cancer according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results summary stage (localized, regional, distant). In the base case, people aged 55–74 years were under consideration for annual screening. Costs and quality-adjusted life years were simulated to calculate the incremental cost utility ratio. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the uncertainty associated with screening target ages, stage distribution, cost, utility, mortality, screening duration, and discount rate.

Results

The base case (US$25,383 per quality-adjusted life year gained) was cost-effective compared to the scenario of no screening and acceptable considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$27,000 per quality-adjusted life years gained. In terms of the target age of screening, the age between 60 and 74 years was the most cost-effective. Lung cancer screening was still cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses on the cost for treatment, utility, mortality, screening duration, and less than 5% discount rates, although the result was sensitive to a rise in positive rates or variation of stage distribution.

Conclusion

Our results showed the cost-effectiveness of annual low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations.