Christopher J Cadham1, Pianpian Cao2, Jinani Jayasekera1, Kathryn L Taylor1, David T Levy1, Jihyoun Jeon2, Elena B Elkin3, Kristie L Foley4, Anne Joseph5, Chung Yin Kong6, Jennifer A Minnix7, Nancy A Rigotti8, Benjamin A Toll9, Steven B Zeliadt10,11, Rafael Meza2, Jeanne Mandelblatt1. 1. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 8. Department of Medicine and Mongan Institute, Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of Public Health Sciences and Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 10. Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 11. Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches. METHODS: We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence. CONCLUSION: All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches. METHODS: We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence. CONCLUSION: All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.
Authors: Steven D Criss; Pianpian Cao; Mehrad Bastani; Kevin Ten Haaf; Yufan Chen; Deirdre F Sheehan; Erik F Blom; Iakovos Toumazis; Jihyoun Jeon; Harry J de Koning; Sylvia K Plevritis; Rafael Meza; Chung Yin Kong Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Renee Manser; Andrew Dalton; Rob Carter; Graham Byrnes; Mark Elwood; Donald A Campbell Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2005-01-04 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Angela C Tramontano; Deborah L Schrag; Jennifer K Malin; Melecia C Miller; Jane C Weeks; J Shannon Swan; Pamela M McMahon Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Nichole T Tanner; Neeti M Kanodra; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Elizabeth Payne; Chanita Hughes Halbert; Graham W Warren; Leonard E Egede; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Brian Chen; Gerard A Silvestri; Jennifer Dahne; Kyueun Lee; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Iakovos Toumazis; Koen de Nijs; Pianpian Cao; Mehrad Bastani; Vidit Munshi; Kevin Ten Haaf; Jihyoun Jeon; G Scott Gazelle; Eric J Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Rafael Meza; Chung Yin Kong; Summer S Han; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 33.006
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: Jordan M Neil; Caylin Marotta; Irina Gonzalez; Yuchiao Chang; Douglas E Levy; Amy Wint; Kimberly Harris; Saif Hawari; Elise Noonan; Grace Styklunas; Sydney Crute; Sydney E Howard; Joanne Sheppard; Inga T Lennes; Francine Jacobson; Efren J Flores; Jennifer S Haas; Elyse R Park; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Rafael Meza; Jihyoun Jeon; Evelyn Jimenez-Mendoza; Yoonseo Mok; Pianpian Cao; Kristie L Foley; Caroline Chiles; Jamie S Ostroff; Paul M Cinciripini; Jennifer Minnix; Nancy A Rigotti; Jennifer S Haas; Kathryn Taylor; Randi M Williams; Benjamin A Toll; Anne M Joseph Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Jamie S Ostroff; Donna R Shelley; Lou-Anne Chichester; Jennifer C King; Yuelin Li; Elizabeth Schofield; Andrew Ciupek; Angela Criswell; Rashmi Acharya; Smita C Banerjee; Elena B Elkin; Kathleen Lynch; Bryan J Weiner; Irene Orlow; Chloé M Martin; Sharon V Chan; Victoria Frederico; Phillip Camille; Susan Holland; Jessica Kenney Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 2.728
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