Ilana F Gareen1, William C Black2, Tor D Tosteson3, Qianfei Wang4, JoRean D Sicks5, Anna N A Tosteson6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI. 2. Department of Radiology, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Lebanon, NH. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Biomedical Data Science, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Lebanon, NH. 4. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH. 5. Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI. 6. Departments of Medicine, Community and Family Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported lung cancer and all-cause mortality reductions for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x-ray (CXR) screening. Although LDCT lung screening has received a grade B from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and is a covered service under most health plans, concerns remain on the costs engendered by screening, and the impact of the high rate of significant incidental finding (SIF) detection on those costs. METHODS: We linked American College of Radiology Imaging Network NLST and Medicare fee-for-service claims data for participants from 23 sites for 2002-2009. We performed participant-level analyses using generalized linear regression models to estimate the adjusted annual mean of the 3-year total medical costs per person in each study arm and within screen outcome categories (ever positive with abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, always negative for abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, but with SIFs, and always negative without SIFs). RESULTS: The adjusted annual mean total per person costs were not significantly different between screening arms [LDCT, $11,029 (95% confidence interval, $10,107-$11,951); CXR, $10,905 (95% confidence interval, $10,059-$11,751)], despite higher proportions of individuals with SIFs in the LDCT versus the CXR arm (18% vs. 4%; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found little difference in total annual per person costs between LDCT-screened and CXR-screened Medicare participants, despite the higher number of SIFs in the LDCT arm of the study.
BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported lung cancer and all-cause mortality reductions for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x-ray (CXR) screening. Although LDCT lung screening has received a grade B from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and is a covered service under most health plans, concerns remain on the costs engendered by screening, and the impact of the high rate of significant incidental finding (SIF) detection on those costs. METHODS: We linked American College of Radiology Imaging Network NLST and Medicare fee-for-service claims data for participants from 23 sites for 2002-2009. We performed participant-level analyses using generalized linear regression models to estimate the adjusted annual mean of the 3-year total medical costs per person in each study arm and within screen outcome categories (ever positive with abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, always negative for abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer, but with SIFs, and always negative without SIFs). RESULTS: The adjusted annual mean total per person costs were not significantly different between screening arms [LDCT, $11,029 (95% confidence interval, $10,107-$11,951); CXR, $10,905 (95% confidence interval, $10,059-$11,751)], despite higher proportions of individuals with SIFs in the LDCT versus the CXR arm (18% vs. 4%; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found little difference in total annual per person costs between LDCT-screened and CXR-screened Medicare participants, despite the higher number of SIFs in the LDCT arm of the study.
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Patrick Alguire; Paul Dallas; Lawrence E Feinberg; Faith T Fitzgerald; Carrie Horwitch; Linda Humphrey; Richard LeBlond; Darilyn Moyer; Jeffrey G Wiese; Steven Weinberger Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J C M van de Wiel; Y Wang; D M Xu; H J van der Zaag-Loonen; E J van der Jagt; R J van Klaveren; M Oudkerk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael J Kucharczyk; Ravi J Menezes; Alexander McGregor; Narinder S Paul; Heidi C Roberts Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Caroline Chiles; Fenghai Duan; Gregory W Gladish; James G Ravenel; Scott G Baginski; Bradley S Snyder; Sarah DeMello; Stephanie S Desjardins; Reginald F Munden Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 11.105
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
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: Peter C A Jacobs; Willem P Th M Mali; Diederick E Grobbee; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826