Literature DB >> 34673885

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.

Iakovos Toumazis1, Koen de Nijs2, Pianpian Cao3, Mehrad Bastani4, Vidit Munshi5, Kevin Ten Haaf2, Jihyoun Jeon3, G Scott Gazelle5, Eric J Feuer6, Harry J de Koning2, Rafael Meza3, Chung Yin Kong7, Summer S Han8, Sylvia K Plevritis9.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050. EXPOSURES: Low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective.
RESULTS: The 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34673885      PMCID: PMC8532037          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.4942

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   33.006


  45 in total

1.  Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores.

Authors:  Janel Hanmer; William F Lawrence; John P Anderson; Robert M Kaplan; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening in the United States: A Comparative Modeling Study.

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

3.  Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

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

4.  Chapter 8: The FHCRC lung cancer model.

Authors:  William D Hazelton; Jihyoun Jeon; Rafael Meza; Suresh H Moolgavkar
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  Smoking and Lung Cancer Mortality in the United States From 2015 to 2065: A Comparative Modeling Approach.

Authors:  Jihyoun Jeon; Theodore R Holford; David T Levy; Eric J Feuer; Pianpian Cao; Jamie Tam; Lauren Clarke; John Clarke; Chung Yin Kong; Rafael Meza
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Harry J de Koning; Rafael Meza; Sylvia K Plevritis; Kevin ten Haaf; Vidit N Munshi; Jihyoun Jeon; Saadet Ayca Erdogan; Chung Yin Kong; Summer S Han; Joost van Rosmalen; Sung Eun Choi; Paul F Pinsky; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Martin C Tammemägi; William D Hazelton; Eric J Feuer; Pamela M McMahon
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Evaluation of USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Among African American Adult Smokers.

Authors:  Melinda C Aldrich; Sarah F Mercaldo; Kim L Sandler; William J Blot; Eric L Grogan; Jeffrey D Blume
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Alex H Krist; Karina W Davidson; Carol M Mangione; Michael J Barry; Michael Cabana; Aaron B Caughey; Esa M Davis; Katrina E Donahue; Chyke A Doubeni; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Li Li; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Douglas K Owens; Lori Pbert; Michael Silverstein; James Stevermer; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Screening for Lung Cancer - 10 States, 2017.

Authors:  Thomas B Richards; Ashwini Soman; Cheryll C Thomas; Brenna VanFrank; S Jane Henley; M Shayne Gallaway; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 17.586

10.  Lung cancer costs by treatment strategy and phase of care among patients enrolled in Medicare.

Authors:  Deirdre F Sheehan; Steven D Criss; Yufan Chen; Andrew Eckel; Lauren Palazzo; Angela C Tramontano; Chin Hur; Lauren E Cipriano; Chung Yin Kong
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 4.452

View more
  5 in total

1.  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 2.  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

3.  Cost-effectiveness of Low-Dose Computed Tomography With a Plasma-Based Biomarker for Lung Cancer Screening in China.

Authors:  Zixuan Zhao; Youqing Wang; Weijia Wu; Yi Yang; Lingbin Du; Hengjin Dong
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-05-02

4.  Microsimulation Model for Prevention and Intervention of Coloretal Cancer in China (MIMIC-CRC): Development, Calibration, Validation, and Application.

Authors:  Bin Lu; Le Wang; Ming Lu; Yuhan Zhang; Jie Cai; Chenyu Luo; Hongda Chen; Min Dai
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 5.738

5.  Cost-Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography Based on Start Age and Interval in China: Modeling Study.

Authors:  Zixuan Zhao; Lingbin Du; Yuanyuan Li; Le Wang; Youqing Wang; Yi Yang; Hengjin Dong
Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill       Date:  2022-07-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.