INTRODUCTION: A randomized trial has demonstrated that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. Identifying participant and program characteristics that influence the cost-effectiveness of screening will help translate trial results into benefits at the population level. METHODS:Six U.S. cohorts (men and women aged 50, 60, or 70 years) were simulated in an existing patient-level lung cancer model. Smoking histories reflected observed U.S. patterns. We simulated lifetime histories of 500,000 identical individuals per cohort in each scenario. Costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained ($/QALY) were estimated for each program: computed tomography screening; stand-alone smoking cessation therapies (4-30% 1-year abstinence); and combined programs. RESULTS: Annual screening of current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years costs between $126,000 and $169,000/QALY (minimum 20 pack-years of smoking) or $110,000 and $166,000/QALY (40 pack-year minimum), when compared with no screening and assuming background quit rates. Screening was beneficial but had a higher cost per QALY when the model included radiation-induced lung cancers. If screen participation doubled background quit rates, the cost of annual screening (at age 50 years, 20 pack-year minimum) was below $75,000/QALY. If screen participation halved background quit rates, benefits from screening were nearly erased. If screening had no effect on quit rates, annual screening costs more but provided fewer QALYs than annual cessation therapies. Annual combined screening/cessation therapy programs at age 50 years costs $130,500 to $159,700/QALY, when compared with annual stand-alone cessation. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening will likely be strongly linked to achievable smoking cessation rates. Trials and further modeling should explore the consequences of relationships between smoking behaviors and screen participation.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: A randomized trial has demonstrated that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. Identifying participant and program characteristics that influence the cost-effectiveness of screening will help translate trial results into benefits at the population level. METHODS: Six U.S. cohorts (men and women aged 50, 60, or 70 years) were simulated in an existing patient-level lung cancer model. Smoking histories reflected observed U.S. patterns. We simulated lifetime histories of 500,000 identical individuals per cohort in each scenario. Costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained ($/QALY) were estimated for each program: computed tomography screening; stand-alone smoking cessation therapies (4-30% 1-year abstinence); and combined programs. RESULTS: Annual screening of current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years costs between $126,000 and $169,000/QALY (minimum 20 pack-years of smoking) or $110,000 and $166,000/QALY (40 pack-year minimum), when compared with no screening and assuming background quit rates. Screening was beneficial but had a higher cost per QALY when the model included radiation-induced lung cancers. If screen participation doubled background quit rates, the cost of annual screening (at age 50 years, 20 pack-year minimum) was below $75,000/QALY. If screen participation halved background quit rates, benefits from screening were nearly erased. If screening had no effect on quit rates, annual screening costs more but provided fewer QALYs than annual cessation therapies. Annual combined screening/cessation therapy programs at age 50 years costs $130,500 to $159,700/QALY, when compared with annual stand-alone cessation. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening will likely be strongly linked to achievable smoking cessation rates. Trials and further modeling should explore the consequences of relationships between smoking behaviors and screen participation.
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; William S Weintraub; W David Bradford; Paul A Heidenreich; Daniel B Mark; A David Paltiel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-08-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Olga Y Gorlova; Christopher Amos; Claudia Henschke; Lei Lei; Margaret Spitz; Qingyi Wei; Xifeng Wu; Marek Kimmel Journal: Hum Hered Date: 2003 Impact factor: 0.444
Authors: Elan C Paluck; James P McCormack; Mary H H Ensom; Marc Levine; Judith A Soon; David W Fielding Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2006-01-24 Impact factor: 3.154
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
Authors: Sharon M Hall; James M Lightwood; Gary L Humfleet; Alan Bostrom; Victor I Reus; Ricardo Muñoz Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2005 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Lauren E Cipriano; Dorothy Romanus; Craig C Earle; Bridget A Neville; Elkan F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle; Pamela M McMahon Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Pari V Pandharipande; Curtis Heberle; Emily C Dowling; Chung Yin Kong; Angela Tramontano; Katherine E Perzan; William Brugge; Chin Hur Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Summer S Han; S Ayca Erdogan; Iakovos Toumazis; Ann Leung; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Melissa A Clark; Jeremy J Gorelick; JoRean D Sicks; Elyse R Park; Amanda L Graham; David B Abrams; Ilana F Gareen Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 4.244