nach oben

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Erschienen in:

01.08.2016 | Systematic Review

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Strategies Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review

verfasst von: Adam J. N. Raymakers, John Mayo, Stephen Lam, J. Mark FitzGerald, David G. T. Whitehurst, Larry D. Lynd

Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to deliver appreciable reductions in mortality in high-risk patients. However, in an era of constrained medical resources, the cost-effectiveness of such a program needs to be demonstrated.

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature analyzing the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening using LDCT.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews—Health Technology Assessment, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Due to technological progress in CT, we limited our search to studies published between January 2000 and December 2014. Our search returned 393 unique results. After removing studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria, 13 studies remained. Costs are presented in 2014 US dollars (US$).

Results

The results from the economic evaluations identified in this review were varied. All identified studies reported outcomes using either additional survival (life-years gained) or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs gained). Results ranged from US$18,452 to US$66,480 per LYG and US$27,756 to US$243,077 per QALY gained for repeated screening. The results of cost-effectiveness analyses were sensitive to several key model parameters, including the prevalence of lung cancer, cost of LDCT for screening, the proportion of lung cancer detected as localized disease, lead time bias, and, if included, the characteristics of a smoking cessation program.

Conclusions

The cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening program using LDCT remains to be conclusively resolved. It is expected that its cost-effectiveness will largely depend on identifying an appropriate group of high-risk subjects.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Stewart BW, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. World cancer report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research in Cancer; 2014.

Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(1):11–30.CrossRefPubMed

Coleman M, Forman D, Bryant H, Butler J, Rachet B, Maringe C, et al. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995–2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):127–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Team National Lung Screening Trial Research, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.CrossRef

Moyer VA. Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330–8.CrossRefPubMed

Humphrey L, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Mitchell JP, et al. Screening for lung cancer: systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154610/. Accessed 24 Mar 2015

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Proposed decision memo for screening for lung cancer with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N). 2014. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=274. Accessed 24 Mar 2015.

Goulart BHL, Bensink ME, Mummy DG, Ramsey SD. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: costs, national expenditures, and cost-effectiveness. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2012;10(2):267–75.

Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

10.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Purchasing power parities and exchange rates. Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE4. Accessed 23 Mar 2015.

11.

United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. Consumer Price Index (CPI). Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1502.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2015.

12.

Raymakers AJN, Mayo J, Marra CA, FitzGerald M. Diagnostic strategies incorporating computed tomography angiography for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Thorac Imaging. 2014;29(4):209–16.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Beinfeld MT, Wittenberg E, Gazelle GS. Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening. Radiology. 2005;234(2):415–22.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, Sicks JD, Keeler EB, Aberle DR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the national lung screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1793–802.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Chirikos TN, Hazelton T, Tockman M, Clark R. Cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer. JAMA. 2003;289(18):2358.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mahadevia PJ, Fleisher LA, Frick KD, Eng J, Goodman SN, Powe NR. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(3):313–22.CrossRef

17.

Manser R, Dalton A, Carter R, Byrnes G, Elwood M, Campbell DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer. 2005;48(2):171–85.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, Chu CW. Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(14):1759–67.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, Chu C. Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort. Lung Cancer. 2001;32(3):227–36.CrossRefPubMed

20.

McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, Weinstein MC, Cipriano LE, Tramontano AC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(11):1841–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Okamoto N. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in Japan. Cancer. 2000;89(11 Suppl):2489–93.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Pyenson BS, Sander MS, Jiang Y, Kahn H, Mulshine JL. An actuarial analysis shows that offering lung cancer screening as an insurance benefit would save lives at relatively low cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(4):770–9.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Pyenson BS, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Yip R, Dec E. Offering lung cancer screening to high-risk medicare beneficiaries saves lives and is cost-effective: an actuarial analysis. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(5):272–81.PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Shmueli A, Fraifeld S, Peretz T, Gutfeld O, Gips M, Sosna J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of baseline low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: the Israeli experience. Value Health. 2013;16(6):922–31.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Villanti AC, Jiang Y, Abrams DB, Pyenson BS. A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71379.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Taylor KL, Cox LS, Zincke N, Mehta L, McGuire C, Gelmann E. Lung cancer screening as a teachable moment for smoking cessation. Lung Cancer. 2007;56(1):125–34.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD, Black WC, Brewer B, Church TR, et al. Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):920–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

NICE. The social care guidance manual. Incorporating economic evaluation. Guidance and guidelines. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg10/chapter/incorporating-economic-evaluation#measuring-and-valuing-effects. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.

29.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies Canada. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006. Available at: https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.

30.

Hanmer J, Lawrence WF, Anderson JP, Kaplan RM, Fryback DG. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(4):391–400.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, Bell CM, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(18):3302–17.PubMed

32.

Manser R. Screening for lung cancer: a review. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2004;10(4):266–71.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Black C, Bagust A, Boland A, Walker S, McLeod C, De Verteuil R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(3):iii–iv, ix–x, 1–90.

34.

Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, Briggs A, Akehurst R, Buxton M, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14(4):339–47.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Kucharczyk MJ, Menezes RJ, McGregor A, Paul NS, Roberts HC. Assessing the impact of incidental findings in a lung cancer screening study by using low-dose computed tomography. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2011;62(2):141–5.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Galbán CJ, Han MK, Boes JL, Chughtai KA, Meyer CR, Johnson TD, et al. Computed tomography-based biomarker provides unique signature for diagnosis of COPD phenotypes and disease progression. Nat Med. 2012;18(11):1711–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Polonsky TS. Coronary artery calcium score and risk classification for coronary heart disease prediction. JAMA. 2010;303(16):1610.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Tammemägi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, Church TR, Caporaso N, Kvale PA, et al. Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):728–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Tammemägi MC, Church TR, Hocking WG, Silvestri GA, Kvale PA, Riley TL, et al. Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts. PLoS Med. 2014;11(12):e1001764.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Horeweg N, van Rosmalen J, Heuvelmans MA, van der Aalst CM, Vliegenthart R, Scholten ET, et al. Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: a prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1332–41.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Henschke CI. Definition of a positive test result in computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):246.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Lam S, McWilliams A, Mayo J, Tammemagi M. Computed tomography screening for lung cancer: What is a positive screen? Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):289–90.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Stead LF, Bergson G, Lancaster T. Physician advice for smoking cessation. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Wiley; 1996. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000165.pub3/abstract. Accessed 25 Mar 2015

44.

Gomez MM, LoBiondo-Wood G. Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: its effect on smoking behavior. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2013;4(6):405–14.PubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Tammemägi MC, Berg CD, Riley TL, Cunningham CR, Taylor KL. Impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(6):dju084.

Titel: Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Strategies Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review
verfasst von: Adam J. N. Raymakers
John Mayo
Stephen Lam
J. Mark FitzGerald
David G. T. Whitehurst
Larry D. Lynd
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0226-5

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

The Efficiency of Increasing the Capacity of Physiotherapy Screening Clinics or Traditional Medical Services to Address Unmet Demand in Orthopaedic Outpatients: A Practical Application of Discrete Event Simulation with Dynamic Queuing

Difference-in-Differences Method in Comparative Effectiveness Research: Utility with Unbalanced Groups

A Trial-Based Predictive Microsimulation Assessing the Public Health Benefits of Nalmefene and Psychosocial Support for the Reduction of Alcohol Consumption in Alcohol Dependence

Measuring the Volume-Outcome Relation for Complex Hospital Surgery

Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bendamustine Plus Rituximab as a First-Line Treatment for Patients with Follicular Lymphoma in Spain