Literature DB >> 29297005

Risk-Targeted Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Vaibhav Kumar1, Joshua T Cohen1, David van Klaveren2, Djøra I Soeteman3, John B Wong1, Peter J Neumann1, David M Kent1.   

Abstract

Background: Targeting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening to persons at highest risk for lung cancer mortality has been suggested to improve screening efficiency. Objective: To quantify the value of risk-targeted selection for lung cancer screening compared with National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a multistate prediction model. Data Sources: NLST. Target Population: Current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Risk-targeted versus NLST-based screening. Outcome Measures: Incremental 7-year mortality, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of screening with LDCT versus chest radiography at each decile of lung cancer mortality risk. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Participants at greater risk for lung cancer mortality were older and had more comorbid conditions and higher screening-related costs. The incremental lung cancer mortality benefits during the first 7 years ranged from 1.2 to 9.5 lung cancer deaths prevented per 10 000 person-years for the lowest to highest risk deciles, respectively (extreme decile ratio, 7.9). The gradient of benefits across risk groups, however, was attenuated in terms of life-years (extreme decile ratio, 3.6) and QALYs (extreme decile ratio, 2.4). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were similar across risk deciles ($75 000 per QALY in the lowest risk decile to $53 000 per QALY in the highest risk decile). Payers willing to pay $100 000 per QALY would pay for LDCT screening for all decile groups. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Alternative assumptions did not substantially alter our findings. Limitation: Our model did not account for all correlated differences between lung cancer mortality risk and quality of life. Conclusions: Although risk targeting may improve screening efficiency in terms of early lung cancer mortality per person screened, the gains in efficiency are attenuated and modest in terms of life-years, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health (U01NS086294).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29297005      PMCID: PMC6533918          DOI: 10.7326/M17-1401

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  31 in total

1.  Prediction of benefit from carotid endarterectomy in individual patients: a risk-modelling study. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Authors:  P M Rothwell; C P Warlow
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-06-19       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models.

Authors:  H Putter; M Fiocco; R B Geskus
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-05-20       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification.

Authors:  David M Kent; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer.

Authors:  Julie Sturza
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-06       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial.

Authors:  Martin M Oken; Willam G Hocking; Paul A Kvale; Gerald L Andriole; Saundra S Buys; Timothy R Church; E David Crawford; Mona N Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R Ragard; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Patrick Wright; Neil Caparaso; Ping Hu; Grant Izmirlian; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony B Miller; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.

Authors:  Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The mstate package for estimation and prediction in non- and semi-parametric multi-state and competing risks models.

Authors:  Liesbeth C de Wreede; Marta Fiocco; Hein Putter
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2010-03-15       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal.

Authors:  David M Kent; Peter M Rothwell; John P A Ioannidis; Doug G Altman; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Lung cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality associated with ambient air pollution and cigarette smoke: shape of the exposure-response relationships.

Authors:  C Arden Pope; Richard T Burnett; Michelle C Turner; Aaron Cohen; Daniel Krewski; Michael Jerrett; Susan M Gapstur; Michael J Thun
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Multivariable risk prediction can greatly enhance the statistical power of clinical trial subgroup analysis.

Authors:  Rodney A Hayward; David M Kent; Sandeep Vijan; Timothy P Hofer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-04-13       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  32 in total

Review 1.  Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.

Authors:  David M Kent; Ewout Steyerberg; David van Klaveren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-12-10

2.  Cost-effectiveness of model-based eligibility for lung cancer screening in the routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Salvatore Intagliata; Elisa Roca; Deborah Cosentini; Alfredo Berruti
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-09

3.  Basing Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening on Individualized Risk Calculators Should Save More Lives, but Life Expectancy Matters.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Li C Cheung; Rebecca Landy
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Life-Gained-Based Versus Risk-Based Selection of Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Li C Cheung; Christine D Berg; Philip E Castle; Hormuzd A Katki; Anil K Chaturvedi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Identifying Patients for Whom Lung Cancer Screening Is Preference-Sensitive: A Microsimulation Study.

Authors:  Tanner J Caverly; Pianpian Cao; Rodney A Hayward; Rafael Meza
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Targeting of the diabetes prevention program leads to substantial benefits when capacity is constrained.

Authors:  Natalia Olchanski; David van Klaveren; Joshua T Cohen; John B Wong; Robin Ruthazer; David M Kent
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 4.280

Review 7.  Selecting lung cancer screenees using risk prediction models-where do we go from here.

Authors:  Martin C Tammemägi
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-06

8.  Targeted Incentive Programs For Lung Cancer Screening Can Improve Population Health And Economic Efficiency.

Authors:  David D Kim; Joshua T Cohen; John B Wong; Babak Mohit; A Mark Fendrick; David M Kent; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 9.  Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives.

Authors:  Matthijs Oudkerk; ShiYuan Liu; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Joan E Walter; John K Field
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Christine Lary; Adam Black; Caitlin Gutheil; Hayley Mandeville; Jason Yahwak; Mayuko Fukunaga
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-10-20       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.