1
|
Zhao Z, Gu S, Yang Y, Wu W, Du L, Wang G, Dong H. A cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography and a polygenic risk score. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:73. [PMID: 38218803 PMCID: PMC10787978 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11800-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2023] [Accepted: 12/26/2023] [Indexed: 01/15/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Several studies have proved that Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) is a potential candidate for realizing precision screening. The effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been proved to reduce lung cancer specific and overall mortality, but the cost-effectiveness of diverse screening strategies remained unclear. METHODS The comparative cost-effectiveness analysis used a Markov state-transition model to assess the potential effect and costs of the screening strategies incorporating PRS or not. A hypothetical cohort of 300,000 heavy smokers entered the study at age 50-74 years and were followed up until death or age 79 years. The model was run with a cycle length of 1 year. All the transition probabilities were validated and the performance value of PRS was extracted from published literature. A societal perspective was adopted and cost parameters were derived from databases of local medical insurance bureau. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS The strategy incorporating PRS was estimated to obtain an ICER of CNY 156,691.93 to CNY 221,741.84 per QALY gained compared with non-screening with the initial start age range across 50-74 years. The strategy that screened using LDCT alone from 70-74 years annually could obtain an ICER of CNY 80,880.85 per QALY gained, which was the most cost-effective strategy. The introduction of PRS as an extra eligible criteria was associated with making strategies cost-saving but also lose the capability of gaining more LYs compared with LDCT screening alone. CONCLUSION The PRS-based conjunctive screening strategy for lung cancer screening in China was not cost-effective using the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 time Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, and the optimal screening strategy for lung cancer still remains to be LDCT screening for now. Further optimization of the screening modality can be useful to consider adoption of PRS and prospective evaluation remains a research priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zixuan Zhao
- Department of Public Administration, School of Health Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
| | - Shuyan Gu
- Center for Health Policy and Management Studies, School of Government, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Yi Yang
- Department of Science and Education of the Fourth Affiliated Hospital, and Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
| | - Weijia Wu
- Department of Science and Education of the Fourth Affiliated Hospital, and Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
| | - Lingbin Du
- Department of Cancer Prevention, Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences/Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences/Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Gaoling Wang
- Department of Public Administration, School of Health Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China.
| | - Hengjin Dong
- Department of Science and Education of the Fourth Affiliated Hospital, and Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Poon C, Wilsdon T, Sarwar I, Roediger A, Yuan M. Why is the screening rate in lung cancer still low? A seven-country analysis of the factors affecting adoption. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1264342. [PMID: 38026274 PMCID: PMC10666168 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1264342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 10/12/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Strong evidence of lung cancer screening's effectiveness in mortality reduction, as demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the US and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON), has prompted countries to implement formal lung cancer screening programs. However, adoption rates remain largely low. This study aims to understand how lung cancer screening programs are currently performing. It also identifies the barriers and enablers contributing to adoption of lung cancer screening across 10 case study countries: Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Poland, South Korea and the United States. Adoption rates vary significantly across studied countries. We find five main factors impacting adoption: (1) political prioritization of lung cancer (2) financial incentives/cost sharing and hidden ancillary costs (3) infrastructure to support provision of screening services (4) awareness around lung cancer screening and risk factors and (5) cultural views and stigma around lung cancer. Although these factors have application across the countries, the weighting of each factor on driving or hindering adoption varies by country. The five areas set out by this research should be factored into policy making and implementation to maximize effectiveness and outreach of lung cancer screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tim Wilsdon
- Charles River Associates, London, United Kingdom
| | - Iqra Sarwar
- Charles River Associates, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Megan Yuan
- Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Baird TA, Wright DR, Britto MT, Lipstein EA, Trout AT, Hayatghaibi SE. Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review. THE PATIENT 2023; 16:579-591. [PMID: 37667148 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00646-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/22/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative. OBJECTIVES We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence. METHODS The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool. RESULTS A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies. CONCLUSIONS This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Trey A Baird
- University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Davene R Wright
- Division of Child Health Research and Policy, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Maria T Britto
- University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Division of Adolescent Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
- James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA
| | - Ellen A Lipstein
- University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
- James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA
| | - Andrew T Trout
- University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Shireen E Hayatghaibi
- University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
- James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA.
- Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liu R, Li Q, Li Y, Wei W, Ma S, Wang J, Zhang N. Public Preference Heterogeneity and Predicted Uptake Rate of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening Programs in Rural China: Discrete Choice Experiments and Latent Class Analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2023; 9:e42898. [PMID: 37428530 PMCID: PMC10366669 DOI: 10.2196/42898] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2022] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 07/11/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rapid increases in the morbidity and mortality of patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGC) in high-incidence countries in Asia have raised public health concerns. Screening can effectively reduce the incidence and mortality of patients with UGC, but the low population uptake rate seriously affects the screening effect. OBJECTIVE We aimed to determine the characteristics that influence residents' preference heterogeneity for a UGC-screening program and the extent to which these characteristics predict residents' uptake rates. METHODS A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 1000 residents aged 40-69 years who were randomly selected from 3 counties (Feicheng, Linqu, and Dongchangfu) in Shandong Province, China. Each respondent was repeatedly asked to choose from 9 discrete choice questions of 2 hypothetical screening programs comprising 5 attributes: screening interval, screening technique, regular follow-up for precancerous lesions, mortality reduction, and out-of-pocket costs. The latent class logit model was used to estimate residents' preference heterogeneity for each attribute level, their willingness to pay, and the expected uptake rates. RESULTS Of the 1000 residents invited, 926 (92.6%) were included in the final analyses. The mean age was 57.32 (SD 7.22) years. The best model contained 4 classes of respondents (Akaike information criterion=7140.989, Bayesian information criterion=7485.373) defined by different preferences for the 5 attributes. In the 4-class model, out of 926 residents, 88 (9.5%) were assigned to class 1, named as the negative latent type; 216 (3.3%) were assigned to class 2, named as the positive integrated type; 434 (46.9%) were assigned to class 3, named as the positive comfortable type; and 188 (20.3%) were assigned to class 4, named as the neutral quality type. For these 4 latent classes, "out-of-pocket cost" is the most preferred attribute in negative latent type and positive integrated type residents (45.04% vs 66.04% importance weights), whereas "screening technique" is the most preferred factor in positive comfortable type residents (62.56% importance weight) and "screening interval" is the most valued attribute in neutral quality type residents (47.05% importance weight). Besides, residents in different classes had common preference for painless endoscopy, and their willingness to pay were CNY ¥385.369 (US $59.747), CNY ¥93.44 (US $14.486), CNY ¥1946.48 (US $301.810), and CNY ¥3566.60 (US $552.961), respectively. Residents' participation rate could increase by more than 89% (except for the 60.98% in class 2) if the optimal UGC screening option with free, follow-up for precancerous lesions, 45% mortality reduction, screening every year, and painless endoscopy was implemented. CONCLUSIONS Public preference heterogeneity for UGC screening does exist. Most residents have a positive attitude toward UGC screening, but their preferences vary in selected attributes and levels, except for painless endoscopy. Policy makers should consider these heterogeneities to formulate UGC-screening programs that incorporate the public's needs and preferences to improve participation rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruyue Liu
- Center for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
- National Health Commission Key Lab of Health Economics and Policy Research, Shandong University, Jinan, China
- School of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China
| | - Qiuxia Li
- School of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China
| | - Yifan Li
- Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Wenjian Wei
- Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Siqi Ma
- Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Jialin Wang
- Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| | - Nan Zhang
- Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Almatrafi A, Thomas O, Callister M, Gabe R, Beeken RJ, Neal R. The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Screen 2023; 30:3-13. [PMID: 35942779 PMCID: PMC9925896 DOI: 10.1177/09691413221117685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes for all lung cancer patients, but its burden is less understood in the context of screening. This review synthesises the prevalence of comorbidities among lung cancer screening (LCS) candidates and summarises the clinical recommendations for screening comorbid individuals. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL databases from January 1990 to February 2021. We included LCS studies that reported a prevalence of comorbidity, as a prevalence of a particular condition, or as a summary score. We also summarised LCS clinical guidelines that addressed comorbidity or frailty for LCS as a secondary objective for this review. Meta-analysis was used with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model to estimate the prevalence of selected comorbidities. RESULTS We included 69 studies in the review; seven reported comorbidity summary scores, two reported performance status, 48 reported individual comorbidities, and 12 were clinical guideline papers. The meta-analysis of individual comorbidities resulted in an estimated prevalence of 35.2% for hypertension, 23.5% for history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (10.7% for severe COPD), 16.6% for ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 13.1% for peripheral vascular disease (PVD), 12.9% for asthma, 12.5% for diabetes, 4.5% for bronchiectasis, 2.2% for stroke, and 0.5% for pulmonary fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS Comorbidities were highly prevalent in LCS populations and likely to be more prevalent than in other cancer screening programmes. Further research on the burden of comorbid disease and its impact on screening uptake and outcomes is needed. Identifying individuals with frailty and comorbidities who might not benefit from screening should become a priority in LCS research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anas Almatrafi
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK,Department of Epidemiology, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia,Anas Almatrafi, Leeds Institute of Health
Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9NL, UK.
| | - Owen Thomas
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Matthew Callister
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Leeds
Teaching Hospitals, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Rhian Gabe
- Center for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population
Health, Queen Mary University of
London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca J Beeken
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK,Department of Behavioural Science and
Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Richard Neal
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK,College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhao Z, Wang Y, Wu W, Yang Y, Du L, Dong H. Cost-effectiveness of Low-Dose Computed Tomography With a Plasma-Based Biomarker for Lung Cancer Screening in China. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2213634. [PMID: 35608858 PMCID: PMC9131747 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.13634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE China, which has one-third of the worldwide smoking population, has a substantial cancer burden, with lung cancer being the leading cause of cancer-related death. The effectiveness of lung cancer screening for mortality reduction has been confirmed, but the cost-effectiveness of diverse screening modalities remains unclear. OBJECTIVE To compare the cost-effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) with a biomarker (micro-RNA signature classifier [MSC]) with that of LDCT alone by screening interval and cumulative smoking exposure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this economic evaluation, a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis used Markov state transition models that simulated the 1947 to 1971 China birth cohort. Simulated individuals in 8 cohorts of 10 000 entered the study between ages 50 and 74 years and were followed up until death or age 79 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2050. The model was run with a cycle length of 1 year. All the transition probabilities were validated, and health utility values were extracted from published literature. Cost parameters were derived from the databases of local medical insurance bureaus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes included life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with future costs and outcomes discounted by 5%. Screening strategies with a mean ICER less than Chinese yuan (CNY) 212 676 per QALY gained were deemed to be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of 7 alternative screening strategies with a screening starting age of 50 years, minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 vs 30 pack-years, and screening interval of annual vs 1 time was estimated, including the 2021 China guideline-recommended strategy (LDCT, annual, 30 pack-years) and the 2018 China guideline-recommended strategy (LDCT, annual, 20 pack-years). RESULTS In a simulated population of 80 000 individuals, the conjunctive LDCT and MSC screening strategy was estimated to obtain an ICER of CNY -793 995.17 to 254 417.46 (minimum cumulative smoking exposure, 20-30 pack-years) per QALY gained compared with LDCT screening alone. China's 2021 guideline-recommended strategy was not cost-effective compared with the 2018 guideline-recommended strategy, with higher costs and fewer QALYs gained; the QALY loss ranged from 0.02 to 0.15 per person and the increase in cost ranged from CNY 945.89 to CNY 5131.29 per person. LDCT and MSC screening beginning at age 70 to 74 years in individuals with a 20 pack-year smoking history was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of CNY -793 995.17 per QALY gained. Lowering the minimum cumulative smoking exposure for screening from 30 to 20 pack-years and maintaining annual screening were associated with greater cost savings regardless of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This economic evaluation found that China's 2018 recommendation for lung cancer screening was more cost-effective than the 2021 recommendation. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening was improved when MSC was included with LDCT. These findings may be useful for the modification of guidelines for lung cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zixuan Zhao
- Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Youqing Wang
- Department of Cancer Prevention, Cancer Hospital of the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences/Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Weijia Wu
- Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Yi Yang
- Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Lingbin Du
- Department of Cancer Prevention, Cancer Hospital of the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences/Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
| | - Hengjin Dong
- Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
- The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang, China
| |
Collapse
|