Anna Puggina1, Athanasios Broumas2, Walter Ricciardi3, Stefania Boccia3. 1. 1 Section of Hygiene, Institute of Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy anna.puggina@rm.unicatt.it. 2. 2 SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy. 3. 1 Section of Hygiene, Institute of Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On 31 December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force rated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening as level 'B' recommendation. Yet, lung cancer screening implementation remains controversial, particularly when considering its cost-effectiveness. The aim of this work is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening program for lung cancer by performing a systematic literature review. METHODS: We reviewed the published economic evaluations of LDCT in lung cancer screening. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched for literature retrieval up to 31 March 2015. Inclusion criteria included: studies reporting an original full economic evaluation; reports presenting the outcomes as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained or as Life Years Gained. RESULTS: Nine economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All the cost-effectiveness analyses included high risk populations for lung cancer and compared the use of annual LDCT screening with no screening. Seven studies reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the threshold of US$ 100 000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer is an highly debatable issue. Currently available economic evaluations suggest the cost-effectiveness of LDCT for lung cancer screening compared with no screening and indicate that the implementation of LDCT should be considered when planning a national lung cancer screening program. Additional economic evaluations, especially from a societal perspective and in an EU-setting, are needed.
BACKGROUND: On 31 December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force rated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening as level 'B' recommendation. Yet, lung cancer screening implementation remains controversial, particularly when considering its cost-effectiveness. The aim of this work is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening program for lung cancer by performing a systematic literature review. METHODS: We reviewed the published economic evaluations of LDCT in lung cancer screening. MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched for literature retrieval up to 31 March 2015. Inclusion criteria included: studies reporting an original full economic evaluation; reports presenting the outcomes as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained or as Life Years Gained. RESULTS: Nine economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All the cost-effectiveness analyses included high risk populations for lung cancer and compared the use of annual LDCT screening with no screening. Seven studies reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the threshold of US$ 100 000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer is an highly debatable issue. Currently available economic evaluations suggest the cost-effectiveness of LDCT for lung cancer screening compared with no screening and indicate that the implementation of LDCT should be considered when planning a national lung cancer screening program. Additional economic evaluations, especially from a societal perspective and in an EU-setting, are needed.
Authors: Stacey-Ann Whittaker Brown; Maria Padilla; Grace Mhango; Emanuela Taioli; Charles Powell; Juan Wisnivesky Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-08
Authors: Eduardo Edelman Saul; Raquel B Guerra; Michelle Edelman Saul; Laercio Lopes da Silva; Gabriel F P Aleixo; Raquel M K Matuda; Gilberto Lopes Journal: Nat Cancer Date: 2020-11-30
Authors: Kenneth P Seastedt; Michael J Luca; Jared L Antevil; Robert F Browning; Philip S Mullenix; Junewai L Reoma; Sean A McKay Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908