Literature DB >> 30268459

Cost-utility analysis of a potential lung cancer screening program for a high-risk population in Germany: A modelling approach.

Florian Hofer1, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor2, Tom Stargardt3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Germany. Although several randomized trials in Europe have evaluated the effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is scarce.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a population-based lung cancer screening program from the perspective of a German payer.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the public payer perspective for a high-risk population defined as heavy former and current smokers (≥20 cigarettes per day) between 55 and 75 years of age. The underlying model consisted of two Markov models. We differentiated between a population-based annual screening program and standard clinical care. Depending on stage at diagnosis, simulated patients were assigned to one of five treatment paths according to the German clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Costs, life years saved, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as outcomes. Values for input parameters were taken from the literature. The model was run for 60 cycles with a cycle length of three months. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: In the base case, annual lung cancer screening led to an increase in incremental costs (€ 1,153 per person) compared to standard clinical care. However, the screening approach was associated with an incremental gain in life years (0.06 per person) and QALYs (0.04 per person). Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was € 19,302 per life year saved and € 30,291 per QALY. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 draws resulted in average ICERs of € 22,118 per life year and € 34,841 per QALY.
CONCLUSION: We provide evidence that lung cancer screening for a high-risk population may be more effective, but also more costly, than standard clinical care from the perspective of a German payer.
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian calibration; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Early detection; Health economic evaluation; LDCT screening; Markov modelling

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30268459     DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.07.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lung Cancer        ISSN: 0169-5002            Impact factor:   5.705


  14 in total

1.  Ten-year results of the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection trial demonstrate the safety and efficacy of biennial lung cancer screening.

Authors:  U Pastorino; N Sverzellati; S Sestini; M Silva; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2019-07-20       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review Assessing Strategy Comparison and Risk Stratification.

Authors:  Matthew Fabbro; Kirah Hahn; Olivia Novaes; Mícheál Ó'Grálaigh; James F O'Mahony
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-08-30

Review 3.  Lung Cancer Screening: New Perspective and Challenges in Europe.

Authors:  Jan P Van Meerbeeck; Emma O'Dowd; Brian Ward; Paul Van Schil; Annemiek Snoeckx
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 4.  Recommendations for Implementing Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Europe.

Authors:  Giulia Veronesi; David R Baldwin; Claudia I Henschke; Simone Ghislandi; Sergio Iavicoli; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J De Koning; Joseph Shemesh; John K Field; Javier J Zulueta; Denis Horgan; Lucia Fiestas Navarrete; Maurizio Valentino Infante; Pierluigi Novellis; Rachael L Murray; Nir Peled; Cristiano Rampinelli; Gaetano Rocco; Witold Rzyman; Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Martin C Tammemagi; Luca Bertolaccini; Natthaya Triphuridet; Rowena Yip; Alexia Rossi; Suresh Senan; Giuseppe Ferrante; Kate Brain; Carlijn van der Aalst; Lorenzo Bonomo; Dario Consonni; Jan P Van Meerbeeck; Patrick Maisonneuve; Silvia Novello; Anand Devaraj; Zaigham Saghir; Giuseppe Pelosi
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 6.639

5.  Analyzing maternal mortality rate in rural China by Grey-Markov model.

Authors:  Yawen Wang; Zhongzhou Shen; Yu Jiang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Cost-effectiveness and health impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for never smokers in Japan and the United States: a modelling study.

Authors:  Akiko Kowada
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 3.317

7.  Can we increase efficiency of CT lung cancer screening by combining with CVD and COPD screening? Results of an early economic evaluation.

Authors:  Carina M Behr; Hendrik Koffijberg; Koen Degeling; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Maarten J IJzerman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 7.034

8.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of two-way texting for post-operative follow-up in Zimbabwe's voluntary medical male circumcision program.

Authors:  Joseph B Babigumira; Scott Barnhart; Joanna M Mendelsohn; Vernon Murenje; Mufuta Tshimanga; Christina Mauhy; Isaac Holeman; Sinokuthemba Xaba; Marrianne M Holec; Batsirai Makunike-Chikwinya; Caryl Feldacker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Vitamin D supplementation to the older adult population in Germany has the cost-saving potential of preventing almost 30 000 cancer deaths per year.

Authors:  Tobias Niedermaier; Thomas Gredner; Sabine Kuznia; Ben Schöttker; Ute Mons; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 6.603

10.  Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 9.410

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.