Bradley D Allen1, Mark L Schiebler2, Gregor Sommer3, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor4,5, Juergen Biederer4,5,6,7, Timothy J Kruser8, James C Carr9, Gordon Hazen10. 1. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. bdallen@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Translational Lung Research Center (TLRC) Heidelberg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Faculty of Medicine, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia. 7. Faculty of Medicine, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University , Chicago, IL, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 10. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies with lung MRI (MRI) have shown high sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for lung nodule detection and characterization relative to low-dose CT (LDCT). Using this background data, we sought to compare the potential screening performance of MRI vs. LDCT using a Markov model of lung cancer screening. METHODS: We created a Markov cohort model of lung cancer screening which incorporated lung cancer incidence, progression, and mortality based on gender, age, and smoking burden. Sensitivity (Sn) and Sp for LDCT were taken from the MISCAN Lung Microsimulation and Sn/Sp for MRI was estimated from a published substudy of the German Lung Cancer Screening and Intervention Trial. Screening, work-up, and treatment costs were estimated from published data. Screening with MRI and LDCT was simulated for a cohort of male and female smokers (2 packs per day; 36 pack/years of smoking history) starting at age 60. We calculated the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of MRI screening and performed a sensitivity analysis on MRI Sn/Sp and cost. RESULTS: There was no difference in life expectancy between MRI and LDCT screening (males 13.28 vs. 13.29 life-years; females 14.22 vs. 14.22 life-years). MRI had a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of $258,169 in men and $403,888 in women driven by fewer false-positive screens. On sensitivity analysis, MRI remained cost effective at screening costs < $396 dollars and Sp > 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this Markov model of lung cancer screening, MRI has a near-equivalent life expectancy benefit and has superior cost-effectiveness relative to LDCT. KEY POINTS: • In this Markov model of lung cancer screening, there is no difference in mortality between yearly screening with MRI and low-dose CT. • Compared to low-dose CT, screening with MRI led to a reduction in false-positive studies from 26 to 2.8% in men and 26 to 2.6% in women. • Due to similar life-expectancy and reduced false-positive rate, we found a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of $258,169 in men and $403,888 in women of MRI relative to low-dose CT.
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies with lung MRI (MRI) have shown high sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for lung nodule detection and characterization relative to low-dose CT (LDCT). Using this background data, we sought to compare the potential screening performance of MRI vs. LDCT using a Markov model of lung cancer screening. METHODS: We created a Markov cohort model of lung cancer screening which incorporated lung cancer incidence, progression, and mortality based on gender, age, and smoking burden. Sensitivity (Sn) and Sp for LDCT were taken from the MISCAN Lung Microsimulation and Sn/Sp for MRI was estimated from a published substudy of the German Lung Cancer Screening and Intervention Trial. Screening, work-up, and treatment costs were estimated from published data. Screening with MRI and LDCT was simulated for a cohort of male and female smokers (2 packs per day; 36 pack/years of smoking history) starting at age 60. We calculated the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of MRI screening and performed a sensitivity analysis on MRI Sn/Sp and cost. RESULTS: There was no difference in life expectancy between MRI and LDCT screening (males 13.28 vs. 13.29 life-years; females 14.22 vs. 14.22 life-years). MRI had a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of $258,169 in men and $403,888 in women driven by fewer false-positive screens. On sensitivity analysis, MRI remained cost effective at screening costs < $396 dollars and Sp > 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this Markov model of lung cancer screening, MRI has a near-equivalent life expectancy benefit and has superior cost-effectiveness relative to LDCT. KEY POINTS: • In this Markov model of lung cancer screening, there is no difference in mortality between yearly screening with MRI and low-dose CT. • Compared to low-dose CT, screening with MRI led to a reduction in false-positive studies from 26 to 2.8% in men and 26 to 2.6% in women. • Due to similar life-expectancy and reduced false-positive rate, we found a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of $258,169 in men and $403,888 in women of MRI relative to low-dose CT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-benefit analysis; Health care costs; Lung cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Screening
Authors: Lynn T Tanoue; Nichole T Tanner; Michael K Gould; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Peter B Bach; Joshua N Mirkin; Thomas K Oliver; Christopher G Azzoli; Donald A Berry; Otis W Brawley; Tim Byers; Graham A Colditz; Michael K Gould; James R Jett; Anita L Sabichi; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Douglas E Wood; Amir Qaseem; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Elizabeth B Lamont; Angela Mariotto; Joan L Warren; Marie Topor; Angela Meekins; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: U Pastorino; M Silva; S Sestini; F Sabia; M Boeri; A Cantarutti; N Sverzellati; G Sozzi; G Corrao; A Marchianò Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 32.976