W K Evans1, W M Flanagan2, A B Miller3, J R Goffin1, S Memon4, N Fitzgerald4, M C Wolfson5. 1. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; 2. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON; 3. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON; 4. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, ON; 5. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (ldct) screening has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer; however, the optimal screening duration and "at risk" population are not known. METHODS: The Cancer Risk Management Model developed by Statistics Canada for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer includes a lung screening module based on data from the U.S. National Lung Screening Trial (nlst). The base-case scenario reproduces nlst outcomes with high fidelity. The impact in Canada of annual screening on the number of incident cases and life-years gained, with a wider range of age and smoking history eligibility criteria and varied participation rates, was modelled to show the magnitude of clinical benefit nationally and by province. Life-years gained, costs (discounted and undiscounted), and resource requirements were also estimated. RESULTS: In 2014, 1.4 million Canadians were eligible for screening according to nlst criteria. Over 10 years, screening would detect 12,500 more lung cancers than the expected 268,300 and would gain 9200 life-years. The computed tomography imaging requirement of 24,000-30,000 at program initiation would rise to between 87,000 and 113,000 by the 5th year of an annual nlst-like screening program. Costs would increase from approximately $75 million to $128 million at 10 years, and the cumulative cost nationally over 10 years would approach $1 billion, partially offset by a reduction in the costs of managing advanced lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling various ways in which ldct might be implemented provides decision-makers with estimates of the effect on clinical benefit and on resource needs that clinical trial results are unable to provide.
BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (ldct) screening has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer; however, the optimal screening duration and "at risk" population are not known. METHODS: The Cancer Risk Management Model developed by Statistics Canada for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer includes a lung screening module based on data from the U.S. National Lung Screening Trial (nlst). The base-case scenario reproduces nlst outcomes with high fidelity. The impact in Canada of annual screening on the number of incident cases and life-years gained, with a wider range of age and smoking history eligibility criteria and varied participation rates, was modelled to show the magnitude of clinical benefit nationally and by province. Life-years gained, costs (discounted and undiscounted), and resource requirements were also estimated. RESULTS: In 2014, 1.4 million Canadians were eligible for screening according to nlst criteria. Over 10 years, screening would detect 12,500 more lung cancers than the expected 268,300 and would gain 9200 life-years. The computed tomography imaging requirement of 24,000-30,000 at program initiation would rise to between 87,000 and 113,000 by the 5th year of an annual nlst-like screening program. Costs would increase from approximately $75 million to $128 million at 10 years, and the cumulative cost nationally over 10 years would approach $1 billion, partially offset by a reduction in the costs of managing advanced lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling various ways in which ldct might be implemented provides decision-makers with estimates of the effect on clinical benefit and on resource needs that clinical trial results are unable to provide.
Authors: William C Black; Ilana F Gareen; Samir S Soneji; JoRean D Sicks; Emmett B Keeler; Denise R Aberle; Arash Naeim; Timothy R Church; Gerard A Silvestri; Jeremy Gorelick; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P M Lantz; L C Richardson; L E Sever; D J Macklem; M L Hare; C E Orians; R Henson Journal: J Health Polit Policy Law Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 2.265
Authors: Charles A Butts; Keyue Ding; Lesley Seymour; Philip Twumasi-Ankrah; Barbara Graham; David Gandara; David H Johnson; Kenneth A Kesler; Mark Green; Mark Vincent; Yvon Cormier; Glenwood Goss; Brian Findlay; Michael Johnston; Ming-Sound Tsao; Frances A Shepherd Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David S Gierada; Kavita Garg; Hrudaya Nath; Diane C Strollo; Richard M Fagerstrom; Melissa B Ford Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jean H E Yong; Claude Nadeau; William M Flanagan; Andrew J Coldman; Keiko Asakawa; Rochelle Garner; Natalie Fitzgerald; Martin J Yaffe; Anthony B Miller Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.677