Tanner J Caverly1, Pianpian Cao2, Rodney A Hayward1, Rafael Meza2. 1. VA Center for Clinical Management Research and University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan (T.J.C., R.A.H.). 2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (P.C., R.M.).
Abstract
Background: Many health systems are exploring how to implement low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening programs that are effective and patient-centered. Objective: To examine factors that influence when LDCT screening is preference-sensitive. Design: State-transition microsimulation model. Data Sources: Two large randomized trials, published decision analyses, and the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) cancer registry. Target Population: U.S.-representative sample of simulated patients meeting current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for screening eligibility. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Individual. Intervention: LDCT screening annually for 3 years. Outcome Measures: Lifetime quality-adjusted life-year gains and reduction in lung cancer mortality. To examine the effect of preferences on net benefit, disutilities (the "degree of dislike") quantifying the burden of screening and follow-up were varied across a likely range. The effect of varying the rate of false-positive screening results and overdiagnosis associated with screening was also examined. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Moderate differences in preferences about the downsides of LDCT screening influenced whether screening was appropriate for eligible persons with annual lung cancer risk less than 0.3% or life expectancy less than 10.5 years. For higher-risk eligible persons with longer life expectancy (roughly 50% of the study population), the benefits of LDCT screening overcame even highly negative views about screening and its downsides. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Rates of false-positive findings and overdiagnosed lung cancer were not highly influential. Limitation: The quantitative thresholds that were identified may vary depending on the structure of the microsimulation model. Conclusion: Identifying circumstances in which LDCT screening is more versus less preference-sensitive may help clinicians personalize their screening discussions, tailoring to both preferences and clinical benefit. Primary Funding Source: None.
Background: Many health systems are exploring how to implement low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening programs that are effective and patient-centered. Objective: To examine factors that influence when LDCT screening is preference-sensitive. Design: State-transition microsimulation model. Data Sources: Two large randomized trials, published decision analyses, and the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) cancer registry. Target Population: U.S.-representative sample of simulated patients meeting current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for screening eligibility. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Individual. Intervention: LDCT screening annually for 3 years. Outcome Measures: Lifetime quality-adjusted life-year gains and reduction in lung cancer mortality. To examine the effect of preferences on net benefit, disutilities (the "degree of dislike") quantifying the burden of screening and follow-up were varied across a likely range. The effect of varying the rate of false-positive screening results and overdiagnosis associated with screening was also examined. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Moderate differences in preferences about the downsides of LDCT screening influenced whether screening was appropriate for eligible persons with annual lung cancer risk less than 0.3% or life expectancy less than 10.5 years. For higher-risk eligible persons with longer life expectancy (roughly 50% of the study population), the benefits of LDCT screening overcame even highly negative views about screening and its downsides. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Rates of false-positive findings and overdiagnosed lung cancer were not highly influential. Limitation: The quantitative thresholds that were identified may vary depending on the structure of the microsimulation model. Conclusion: Identifying circumstances in which LDCT screening is more versus less preference-sensitive may help clinicians personalize their screening discussions, tailoring to both preferences and clinical benefit. Primary Funding Source: None.
Authors: Linda S Kinsinger; Charles Anderson; Jane Kim; Martha Larson; Stephanie H Chan; Heather A King; Kathryn L Rice; Christopher G Slatore; Nichole T Tanner; Kathleen Pittman; Robert J Monte; Rebecca B McNeil; Janet M Grubber; Michael J Kelley; Dawn Provenzale; Santanu K Datta; Nina S Sperber; Lottie K Barnes; David H Abbott; Kellie J Sims; Richard L Whitley; R Ryanne Wu; George L Jackson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Sarah DeMello; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Brenda Brewer; Timothy R Church; Kathy L Clingan; Fenghai Duan; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine A Gatsonis; David S Gierada; Amanda Jain; Gordon C Jones; Irene Mahon; Pamela M Marcus; Joshua M Rathmell; JoRean Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 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: Rafael Meza; Kevin ten Haaf; Chung Yin Kong; Ayca Erdogan; William C Black; Martin C Tammemagi; Sung Eun Choi; Jihyoun Jeon; Summer S Han; Vidit Munshi; Joost van Rosmalen; Paul Pinsky; Pamela M McMahon; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; William D Hazelton; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Martin Tammemagi; Christine D Berg; Neil E Caporaso; Tom L Riley; Mary Korch; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Parthiv J Mahadevia; Lee A Fleisher; Kevin D Frick; John Eng; Steven N Goodman; Neil R Powe Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kevin Ten Haaf; Martin C Tammemägi; Susan J Bondy; Carlijn M van der Aalst; Sumei Gu; S Elizabeth McGregor; Garth Nicholas; Harry J de Koning; Lawrence F Paszat Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Pianpian Cao; Jihyoun Jeon; David T Levy; Jinani C Jayasekera; Christopher J Cadham; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathryn L Taylor; Rafael Meza Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2020-03-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Hilary A Robbins; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Danielle E Deros; Shelby Fallon; Jennifer Stephens; Emily Kim; Tania Lobo; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Rafael Meza; Cassandra A Stanton; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Brady McKee; Judith Howell; Michael Ramsaier; Juan Batlle; Ellen Dornelas; Vicky Parikh; Eric Anderson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.226
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
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
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