William K Evans1, Cindy L Gauvreau1, William M Flanagan1, Saima Memon1, Jean Hai Ein Yong1, John R Goffin1, Natalie R Fitzgerald1, Michael Wolfson1, Anthony B Miller2. 1. Department of Oncology (Evans, Goffin), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Gauvreau, Memon, Yong, Fitzgerald), Toronto, Ont.; Statistics Canada (Flanagan); Faculties of Medicine and Law (Wolfson), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Public Health Sciences (Miller), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. 2. Department of Oncology (Evans, Goffin), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Gauvreau, Memon, Yong, Fitzgerald), Toronto, Ont.; Statistics Canada (Flanagan); Faculties of Medicine and Law (Wolfson), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Public Health Sciences (Miller), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. goffin@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt. INTERPRETATION: Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking. Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancermortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt. INTERPRETATION: Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking. Copyright 2020, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: John R Goffin; William M Flanagan; Anthony B Miller; Natalie R Fitzgerald; Saima Memon; Michael C Wolfson; William K Evans Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Sonya Cressman; Stuart J Peacock; Martin C Tammemägi; William K Evans; Natasha B Leighl; John R Goffin; Alain Tremblay; Geoffrey Liu; Daria Manos; Paul MacEachern; Rick Bhatia; Serge Puksa; Garth Nicholas; Annette McWilliams; John R Mayo; John Yee; John C English; Reka Pataky; Emily McPherson; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Michael R Johnston; Heidi Schmidt; Frances A Shepherd; Kam Soghrati; Kayvan Amjadi; Paul Burrowes; Christian Couture; Harmanjatinder S Sekhon; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Glenwood Goss; Diana N Ionescu; David M Hwang; Simon Martel; Don D Sin; Wan C Tan; Stefan Urbanski; Zhaolin Xu; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 15.609
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
Authors: Jane Boswell-Purdy; William M Flanagan; Hélène Roberge; Christel Le Petit; Kathleen J White; Jean-Marie Berthelot Journal: Chronic Dis Can Date: 2007
Authors: Anne M Joseph; Alexander J Rothman; Daniel Almirall; Abbie Begnaud; Caroline Chiles; Paul M Cinciripini; Steven S Fu; Amanda L Graham; Bruce R Lindgren; Anne C Melzer; Jamie S Ostroff; Elizabeth L Seaman; Kathryn L Taylor; Benjamin A Toll; Steven B Zeliadt; David M Vock Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 30.528
Authors: Rafael Meza; Pianpian Cao; Jihyoun Jeon; Kathryn L Taylor; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Eric J Feuer; Douglas R Lowy Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 20.121
Authors: Christopher J Cadham; Pianpian Cao; Jinani Jayasekera; Kathryn L Taylor; David T Levy; Jihyoun Jeon; Elena B Elkin; Kristie L Foley; Anne Joseph; Chung Yin Kong; Jennifer A Minnix; Nancy A Rigotti; Benjamin A Toll; Steven B Zeliadt; Rafael Meza; Jeanne Mandelblatt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Pianpian Cao; Laney Smith; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Jihyoun Jeon; Kathryn L Taylor; Amy Zhao; David T Levy; Randi M Williams; Rafael Meza; Jinani Jayasekera Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Abbie Begnaud; Steven S Fu; Bruce Lindgren; Anne Melzer; Alexander J Rothman; Kelsey Schertz; David M Vock; Anne M Joseph Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-08-18