Literature DB >> 11549429

Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer.

D Marshall1, K N Simpson, C C Earle, C W Chu.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential clinical and economic implications of an annual lung cancer screening programme based on helical computed tomography (CT). A decision analysis model was created using combined data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry public-use database and published results from the Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP). We found that under optimal conditions in a high risk cohort of patients between 60 and 74 years of age, annual lung cancer screening over a period of 5 years appears to be cost effective at approximately $19000 per life year saved. A sensitivity analysis of the model to account for a 1-year decrease in survival benefit and changes in assumptions for incidence rate and costs generated cost effectiveness estimates ranging from approximately $10800 to $62000 per life year saved. Based on the assumptions embedded in this model, annual screening of high risk elderly patients for lung cancer may be cost effective under optimal conditions, but longer term data are needed to confirm if this will be borne out in practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11549429     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00205-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  13 in total

Review 1.  Global registries for measuring pharmacoeconomic and quality-of-life outcomes: focus on design and data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Authors:  Lisa Kennedy; Ann-Marie Craig
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Cancer screening in renal transplant recipients: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Germaine Wong; Jeremy R Chapman; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  Estimating long-term effectiveness of lung cancer screening in the Mayo CT screening study.

Authors:  Pamela M McMahon; Chung Yin Kong; Bruce E Johnson; Milton C Weinstein; Jane C Weeks; Karen M Kuntz; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Stephen J Swensen; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-05-05       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Alan M Zaslavsky; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

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

Authors:  Matthew Fabbro; Kirah Hahn; Olivia Novaes; Mícheál Ó'Grálaigh; James F O'Mahony
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-08-30

Review 6.  Implementing lung cancer screening in the real world: opportunity, challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Robert J Optican; Caroline Chiles
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08

7.  [Bronchial carcinoma. Epidemiology, diagnosis and therapy].

Authors:  H N Macha
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 0.743

8.  Lung cancer screening: Computed tomography or chest radiographs?

Authors:  Edwin Jr van Beek; Saeed Mirsadraee; John T Murchison
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-08-28

9.  Screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Massimo Bellomi; Cristiano Rampinelli; Luigi Funicelli; Gulia Veronesi
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 3.909

10.  Cost of a 5-year lung cancer survivor: symptomatic tumour identification vs proactive computed tomography screening.

Authors:  A W Castleberry; D Smith; C Anderson; A J Rotter; F W Grannis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.