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. 1. Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2. Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 4. Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Northwell Health, New York, New York. 5. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 6. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York. 8. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 9. Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
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.
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.
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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