Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography for High-Risk Smokers in Australia

Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive, associated with low radiation and highly sensitive to lung cancer. To improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening, simultaneous screening for other diseases could be considered. This systematic review was conducted to analyse studies that published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chest LDCT screening programs for different diseases.

METHODS

Scopus and PubMed were searched for English publications (1 January 2011-22 July 2022) using search terms related to screening, computed tomography and cost-effectiveness. An additional search specifically searched for the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Included publications should present a full health economic evaluation of population screening with chest LDCT. The extracted data included the disease screened for, model type, country context of screening, inclusion of comorbidities or incidental findings, incremental costs, incremental effects and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio amongst others. Reporting quality was assessed using the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1799 unique papers, of which 43 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n = 40), and three were on coronary calcium scoring. Microsimulation was the most commonly applied modelling type (n = 16), followed by life table analysis (n = 10) and Markov cohort models (n = 10). Studies reflected the healthcare context of the US (n = 15), Canada (n = 4), the UK (n = 3) and 13 other countries. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from US$10,000 to US$90,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lung cancer screening compared to no screening and was US$15,900/QALY-US$45,300/QALY for coronary calcium scoring compared to no screening.

DISCUSSION

Almost all health economic evaluations of LDCT screening focused on lung cancer. Literature regarding the health economic benefits of simultaneous LDCT screening for multiple diseases is absent. Most studies suggest LDCT screening is cost-effective for current and former smokers aged 55-74 with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking history. Consequently, more evidence on LDCT is needed to support further cost-effectiveness analyses. Preferably evidence on simultaneous screening for multiple diseases is needed, but alternatively, on single-disease screening.

REGISTRATION OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews registration CRD42021290228 can be accessed https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=290228 .

Shall We Screen Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography? Cost-Effectiveness in Hungary

OBJECTIVES

Clinical data and cost-effectiveness analyses from several countries support the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen patients with high risk of lung cancer (LC). This study aimed to explore the economic value of screening LC with LDCT in Hungary.

METHODS

Cohorts of screened and nonscreened subjects were simulated in a decision analytic model over their lifetime. Five steps in the patient trajectory were distinguished: no LC, nondiagnosed LC, screening, diagnosed LC, and post-treatment. Patient pathways were populated based on the Hungarian pilot study of screening, the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) LC screening trial, and local incidence and prevalence data. Healthcare costs were obtained from the National Health Insurance Fund. Utility data were obtained from international sources and adjusted to local tariffs. Scenarios according to screening frequency, age bands (50-74, 55-74 years), and smoking status were analyzed.

RESULTS

Annual LDCT-based screening compared with no screening for 55- to 74-year-old current smokers showed 0.031 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains for an additional €137, which yields €5707 per QALY. Biennial screening for the same target population showed that purchasing 1 QALY would cost €10 203. The least cost-effective case was biennial screening of the general population aged 50 to 74 years, which yielded €37 931 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening LC with LDCT for a high-risk population could be cost-effective in Hungary. For the introduction of screening with LDCT, targeting the most vulnerable groups while having a long-term approach on costs and benefits is essential.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening for Australia, capturing differences in the health economic impact of NELSON and NLST outcomes

BACKGROUND

A national, lung cancer screening programme is under consideration in Australia, and we assessed cost-effectiveness using updated data and assumptions.

METHODS

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of lung screening by applying screening parameters and outcomes from either the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) or the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) to Australian data on lung cancer risk, mortality, health-system costs, and smoking trends using a deterministic, multi-cohort model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

The ICER for lung screening compared to usual care in the NELSON-based scenario was AU$39,250 (95% CI $18,150-108,300) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY); lower than the NLST-based estimate (ICER = $76,300, 95% CI $41,750-236,500). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, lung screening was cost-effective in 15%/60% of NELSON-like simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/$50,000 per QALY, respectively, compared to 0.5%/6.7% for the NLST. ICERs were most sensitive to assumptions regarding the screening-related lung cancer mortality benefit and duration of benefit over time. The cost of screening had a larger impact on ICERs than the cost of treatment, even after quadrupling the 2006-2016 healthcare costs of stage IV lung cancer.

DISCUSSION

Lung screening could be cost-effective in Australia, contingent on translating trial-like lung cancer mortality benefits to the clinic.

[Low-dose Spiral Computed Tomography in Lung Cancer Screening]

Lung cancer is one of the malignant tumors with the highest morbidity and mortality in the world. The low early diagnosis rate and poor prognosis of patients have caused serious social burden. Regular screening of high-risk population by low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) can significantly improve the early diagnosis rate of lung cancer and bring new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. In recent years, LDCT lung cancer screening programs have been carried out in many countries around the world and achieved good results, but there are still some controversies in the selection of screening subjects, screening frequency, cost effectiveness and other aspects. In this paper, the key factors of LDCT lung cancer screening, screening effect, pulmonary nodule management and artificial intelligence contribution to the development of LDCT will be reviewed, and the application progress of LDCT in lung cancer screening will be discussed.
.

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: Clinical evidence and implementation research

Lung cancer causes more deaths than breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer combined. Nevertheless, population-based lung cancer screening is still not considered standard practice in most countries worldwide. Early lung cancer detection leads to better survival outcomes: patients diagnosed with stage 1A lung cancer have a >75% 5-year survival rate, compared to <5% at stage 4. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) thorax imaging for the secondary prevention of lung cancer has been studied at length, and has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations. The US National Lung Screening Trial reported a 20% overall reduction in lung cancer mortality when comparing LDCT to chest X-ray, and the Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trial more recently reported a 24% reduction when comparing LDCT to no screening. Hence, the focus has now shifted to implementation research. Consequently, the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN consortium based in five European countries, has set up a large-scale multicenter implementation trial. Successful implementation of and accessibility to LDCT lung cancer screening are dependent on many factors, not limited to population selection, recruitment strategy, computed tomography screening frequency, lung-nodule management, participant compliance, and cost effectiveness. This review provides an overview of current evidence for LDCT lung cancer screening, and draws attention to major factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement standardized, effective, and accessible screening throughout Europe. Evidence shows that through the appropriate use of risk-prediction models and a more personalized approach to screening, efficacy could be improved. Furthermore, extending the screening interval for low-risk individuals to reduce costs and associated harms is a possibility, and through the use of volumetric-based measurement and follow-up, false positive results can be greatly reduced. Finally, smoking cessation programs could be a valuable addition to screening programs and artificial intelligence could offer a solution to the added workload pressures radiologists are facing.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lung cancer screening programme in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of national lung cancer (LC) screening programme (SP) in a high-risk population from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis for a LC SP was carried out on a lifetime horizon. A Markov model was designed that assumed two scenarios, one with the implementation of the SP and another one without it. Effectiveness and cost of LC management, diagnosis and screening were included in the different health states. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate its robustness. A discount rate was set at 3% both for effectiveness and cost.

RESULTS

In the base-case, an increase of 4.80 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) per patient was obtained, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2345/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the national LC SP to be cost-effective in 80% of cases (probability=0.8) for a willingness-to-pay threshold equivalent to the gross domestic product per capita in Spain, which was set at €25 854/QALY in 2018 based on the per capita income of Spain. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the obtained results are robust in terms of changes in the presentation rates and costs, and the cost-effectiveness thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that the implementation of a LC SP in the high-risk Spanish population would be a cost-effective strategy for the Spanish NHS.

Variation in Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVES

There is significant heterogeneity in the results of published model-based economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. We sought to understand and demonstrate how these models differ.

METHODS

An expansion and update of a previous systematic review (N = 19). Databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Studies were included if strategies involving (single or multiple) LDCT screening were compared with no screening or other imaging modalities, in a population at risk of lung cancer. More detailed data extraction of studies from the previous review was conducted. Studies were critically appraised using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list.

RESULTS

A total of 16 new studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total of 35 studies. There are geographic and temporal differences and differences in screening intervals and eligible populations. Studies varied in the types of models used, for example, decision tree, Markov, and microsimulation models. Most conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (using life-years gained) or cost-utility analysis. The potential for overdiagnosis was considered in many models, unlike with other potential consequences of screening. Some studies report considering lead-time bias, but fewer mention length bias. Generally, the more recent studies, involving more complex modeling, tended to meet more of the critical appraisal criteria, with notable exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many differences across the economic evaluations contributing to variation in estimates of the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Several methodological factors and evidence needs have been highlighted that will require consideration in future economic evaluations to achieve better agreement.

Cost-effectiveness and health impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for never smokers in Japan and the United States: a modelling study

BACKGROUND

Never smokers in Asia have a higher incidence of lung cancer than in Europe and North America. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for never smokers in Japan and the United States.

METHODS

We developed a state-transition model for three strategies: LDCT, chest X-ray (CXR), and no screening, using a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life expectancy life-years (LYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and deaths from lung cancer. The willingness-to-pay level was US$100,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

LDCT yielded the greatest benefits with the lowest cost in Japan, but the ICERs of LDCT compared with CXR were US$3,001,304 per QALY gained for American men and US$2,097,969 per QALY gained for American women. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the incidence of lung cancer. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that LDCT was cost-effective 99.3-99.7% for Japanese, no screening was cost-effective 77.7% for American men, and CXR was cost-effective 93.2% for American women. Compared with CXR, LDCT has the cumulative lifetime potential for 60-year-old Japanese to save US$117 billion, increase 2,339,349 QALYs and 3,020,102 LYs, and reduce 224,749 deaths, and the potential for 60-year-old Americans to cost US$120 billion, increase 48,651 QALYs and 67,988 LYs, and reduce 2,309 deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This modelling study suggests that LDCT screening for never smokers has the greatest benefits and cost savings in Japan, but is not cost-effective in the United States. Assessing the risk of lung cancer in never smokers is important for introducing population-based LDCT screening.

Risk Stratification in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Screening: Intervention Eligibility, Strategy Choice, and Optimality

Introduction

There is increasing interest in risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Current CEA practice regarding risk stratification is heterogeneous and guidance on the best approach is lacking. This article suggests how stratification in CEA can be improved.

Methods

I use a simple example of a hypothetical screening intervention with 3 potential recipient risk strata. The screening intervention has 6 alternative intensities, each with different costs and effects, all of which vary between strata. I consider a series of alternative stratification approaches, demonstrating the consequences for estimated costs, effects, and the choice of optimal strategy. I supplement this analysis with applied examples from the literature.

Results

Adopting the same screening policy for all strata yields the least efficient strategies, where efficiency is understood as the volume of net health benefit generated across a range of cost-effectiveness threshold values. Basic stratification that withholds screening from lower-risk strata while adopting a common strategy for those screened increases efficiency. Greatest efficiency is achieved when different strata receive separate strategies. While complete optimization can be achieved within a single analysis by considering all possible policy combinations, the resulting number of strategy combinations may be inconveniently large. Optimization with separate strata-specific analyses is simpler and more transparent. Despite this, there can be good reasons to simulate all strata together in a single analysis.

Conclusions

If the benefits of risk stratification are to be fully realized, policy makers need to consider the extent to which stratification is feasible, and modelers need to simulate those choices adequately. It is hoped this analysis will clarify those policy and modeling choices and therefore lead to improved population health outcomes.

Lung cancer screening in Australia and New Zealand: the evidence and the challenge

Lung cancer remains the commonest cause of cancer death in Australia and New Zealand. Targeted screening of individuals at highest risk of lung cancer aims to detect early stage disease, which may be amenable to potentially curative treatment. While current policy recommendations in Australia and New Zealand have acknowledged the efficacy of lung cancer screening in clinical trials, there has been no implementation of national programmes. With the recent release of findings from large international trials, the evidence and experience in lung cancer screening has broadened. This article discusses the latest evidence and implications for Australia and New Zealand.

Potential Financial Impact of Incidental Cardiac Pathology Detected During Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is broadly accepted. Screening also identifies incidental cardiac findings (S findings) that need follow-up. We report the magnitude of the potential downstream revenue generated by appropriate S finding management after 4 years of our free LCS program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective database and chart review of a single-center free LCS program in the underserved southeast were performed. All patients who were enrolled in the screening required a primary care physician (PCP) as part of the decision-making model. Referrals to cardiac specialists for S findings found on LCS were recorded. Cost analysis was performed to track potential downstream revenue generated for the institution based upon Medicare allowable or Diagnosis-related group calculations.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred thirty-two scans were reviewed with 262 (23%) yielding positive S findings for 1 or more organ systems. 181/262 (69%) patients had cardiac findings, only 64/181 (35%) of these patients were referred to cardiology specialists by the PCP. The total Medicare billable amount for all cardiac referrals/interventions was $284 379, representing 35% of the potential billable amount of $804 260. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the highest billable amount at $18 568. Eight percent of the patients undergoing appropriate cardiac evaluation required a PCI. If not for the screening and cardiac specialist referral, this patient group may not have received appropriate cardiovascular diagnosis and treatment.

DISCUSSION

Lung cancer screening also identifies patients with significant cardiac disease, many of whom may not be appropriately referred. Identification and treatment of incidentally noted cardiovascular findings may both improve patient care and justify supporting free LCS programs.

Impact of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer on ethnic health inequities in New Zealand: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

There are large inequities in the lung cancer burden for the Indigenous Māori population of New Zealand. We model the potential lifetime health gains, equity impacts and cost-effectiveness of a national low-dose CT (LDCT) screening programme for lung cancer in smokers aged 55-74 years with a 30 pack-year history, and for formers smokers who have quit within the last 15 years.

DESIGN

A Markov macrosimulation model estimated: health benefits (health-adjusted life-years (HALYs)), costs and cost-effectiveness of biennial LDCT screening. Input parameters came from literature and NZ-linked health datasets.

SETTING

New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

Population aged 55-74 years in 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

Biennial LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with usual care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using the average difference in costs and HALYs between the screened and the unscreened populations. Equity analyses included substituting non-Māori values for Māori values of background morbidity, mortality and stage-specific survival. Changes in inequities in lung cancer survival and 'health-adjusted life expectancy' (HALE) were measured.

RESULTS

LDCT screening in NZ is likely to be cost-effective for the total population: NZ$34 400 per HALY gained (95% uncertainty interval NZ$27 500 to NZ$42 900) and for Māori separately (using a threshold of gross domestic product per capita NZ$45 000). Health gains per capita for Māori females were twice that for non-Māori females and 25% greater for Māori males compared with non-Māori males. LDCT screening will narrow absolute inequities in HALE and lung cancer mortality for Māori, but will slightly increase relative inequities in mortality from lung cancer (compared with non-Māori) due to differential stage-specific survival.

CONCLUSION

A national biennial LDCT lung cancer screening programme in New Zealand is likely to be cost-effective, will improve total population health and reduce health inequities for Māori. Attention must be paid to addressing ethnic inequities in stage-specific lung cancer survival.

Health services costs for lung cancer care in Australia: Estimates from the 45 and Up Study

Background

Of all cancer types, healthcare for lung cancer is the third most costly in Australia, but there is little detailed information about these costs. Our aim was to provide detailed population-based estimates of health system costs for lung cancer care, as a benchmark prior to wider availability of targeted therapies/immunotherapy and to inform cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer screening and other interventions in Australia.

Methods

Health system costs were estimated for incident lung cancers in the Australian 45 and Up Study cohort, diagnosed between recruitment (2006–2009) and 2013. Costs to June 2016 included services reimbursed via the Medicare Benefits Schedule, medicines reimbursed via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, inpatient hospitalisations, and emergency department presentations. Costs for cases and matched, cancer-free controls were compared to derive excess costs of care. Costs were disaggregated by patient and tumour characteristics. Data for more recent cases identified in hospital records provided preliminary information on targeted therapy/immunotherapy.

Results

994 eligible cases were diagnosed with lung cancer 2006–2013; 51% and 74% died within one and three years respectively. Excess costs from one-year pre-diagnosis to three years post-diagnosis averaged ~$51,900 per case. Observed costs were higher for cases diagnosed at age 45–59 ($67,700) or 60–69 ($63,500), and lower for cases aged ≥80 ($29,500) and those with unspecified histology ($31,700) or unknown stage ($36,500). Factors associated with lower costs generally related to shorter survival: older age (p<0.0001), smoking (p<0.0001) and unknown stage (p = 0.002). There was no evidence of differences by year of diagnosis or sex (both p>0.50). For 465 cases diagnosed 2014–2015, 29% had subsidised molecular testing for targeted therapy/immunotherapy and 4% had subsidised targeted therapies.

Conclusions

Lung cancer healthcare costs are strongly associated with survival-related factors. Costs appeared stable over the period 2006–2013. This study provides a framework for evaluating the health/economic impact of introducing lung cancer screening and other interventions in Australia.

Outcomes and cost of lung cancer patients treated surgically or medically in Catalunya: cost-benefit implications for lung cancer screening programs

Lung cancer screening programs with computed tomography of the chest reduce mortality by more than 20%. Yet, they have not been implemented widely because of logistic and cost implications. Here, we sought to: (1) use real-life data to compare the outcomes and cost of lung cancer patients with treated medically or surgically in our region and (2) from this data, estimate the cost-benefit ratio of a lung cancer screening program (CRIBAR) soon to be deployed in our region (Catalunya, Spain). We accessed the Catalan Health Surveillance System (CHSS) and analysed data of all patients with a first diagnosis of lung cancer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016. Analysis was carried forward until 30 months (t = 30) after lung cancer diagnosis. Main results showed that: (1) surgically treated lung cancer patients have better survival and return earlier to regular home activities, use less healthcare related resources and cost less tax-payer money and (2) depending on incidence of lung cancer identified and treated in the program (1-2%), the return on investment for CRIBAR is expected to break even at 3-6 years, respectively, after its launch. Surgical treatment of lung cancer is cheaper and offers better outcomes. CRIBAR is estimated to be cost-effective soon after launch.

Direct and indirect healthcare costs of lung cancer CT screening in Denmark: a registry study

INTRODUCTION

A study based on the Danish Randomised Controlled Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) calculated the healthcare costs of lung cancer screening by comparing costs in an intervention group with a control group. Participants in both groups, however, experienced significantly increased negative psychosocial consequences after randomisation. Substantial participation bias has also been documented: The DLCST participants reported fewer negative psychosocial aspects and experienced better living conditions compared with the random sample.

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyse the costs of lung cancer CT screening and to determine whether invitations to mass screening alter the utilisation of the healthcare system resulting in indirect costs. Healthcare utilisation and costs are analysed in the primary care sector (general practitioner psychologists, physiotherapists, other specialists, drugs) and the secondary care sector (emergency room contacts, outpatient visits, hospitalisation days, surgical procedures and non-surgical procedures).

DESIGN

To account for bias in the original trial, the costs and utilisation of healthcare by participants in DLCST were compared with a new reference group, selected in the period from randomisation (2004-2006) until 2014.

SETTING

Four Danish national registers.

PARTICIPANTS

DLCST included 4104 current or former heavy smokers, randomly assigned to the CT group or the control group. The new reference group comprised a random sample of 535 current or former heavy smokers in the general Danish population who were never invited to participate in a cancer screening test.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total healthcare costs including costs and utilisation of healthcare in both the primary and the secondary care sector.

RESULTS

Compared with the reference group, the participants in both the CT group (offered annual CT screening, lung function test and smoking counselling) and the control group (offered annual lung function test and smoking counselling) had significantly increased total healthcare costs, calculated at 60% and 48% respectively. The increase in costs was caused by increased use of healthcare in both the primary and the secondary sectors.

CONCLUSION

CT screening leads to 60% increased total healthcare costs. Such increase would raise the expected annual healthcare cost per participant from EUR 2348 to EUR 3756. Cost analysis that only includes costs directly related to the CT scan and follow-up procedures most likely underestimates total costs. Our data show that the increased costs are not limited to the secondary sector.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00496977.

Cancer costs and gender: a snapshot of issues, trends, and opportunities to reduce inequities using Australia as an example

As the cancer burden increases, so too does the cost, to health systems, economies, and individuals. There is increasing interest in productivity and out-of-pocket costs for individuals and their carers, but these remain poorly understood. The costs of cancer in women, often carers themselves, are less understood. This summary analysis explored data on the cancer burden in Australia (and health costs in comparable countries), including expenditure reports and literature on macroeconomic outcomes and out-of-pocket costs, to highlight the cost impacts of a cancer diagnosis in women, at a societal and an individual level. Data on productivity costs were skewed toward men, as men are over-represented in paid work compared with women. Data on societal and individual costs of cancer in women were scant, yet the predominance of women in unpaid work suggests the cost is significant. Evidence for the benefits of cancer prevention and early detection suggests that improved targeting of interventions to women would reduce costs at a societal and an individual level. More research is needed on the specific impacts of cancer on women and those they care for, to better target public health and support services to need.

Patterns of care for stage III non-small cell lung cancer in Australia

Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) makes up a third of all NSCLC cases and is potentially curable. Despite this 5-year survival rates remain between 15% and 20% with chemoradiation treatment alone given with curative intent. With the recent exciting breakthroughs in immunotherapy use (durvalumab) for stage III NSCLC, further improvements in patient survival can be expected. Most patients with stage III NSCLC present initially to their general practitioner (GP). The recommended time from GP referral to first specialist appointment is less than 14 days with treatment initiated within 42 days. Our review found that there is a shortfall in meeting these recommendations, however a number of initiatives have been established in Australia to improve timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment patterns. The lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) is critical to consistency of evidence-based diagnosis and treatment and can improve patient survival. We aimed to review current patterns of care and clinical practice recommendations for stage III NSCLC across Australia and identify opportunities to improve practice in referral, diagnosis and treatment pathways.

The Chest Australia Trial: a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to increase consultation rates in smokers at risk of lung cancer

Background

International research has focused on screening and mass media campaigns to promote earlier patient presentation and detect lung cancer earlier. This trial tested the effect of a behavioural intervention in people at increased risk of lung cancer on help-seeking for respiratory symptoms.

Methods

Parallel, individually randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were long-term smokers with at least 20 pack-years, aged 55 and above. The CHEST intervention entailed a consultation to discuss and implement a self-help manual, followed by self-monitoring reminders to encourage help-seeking for respiratory symptoms. The control group received a brief discussion about lung health. Both groups had baseline spirometry. Telephone randomisation was conducted, 1:1, stratified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and general practice. Participants could not be blinded; data extraction and statistical analyses were performed blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was respiratory consultation rates.

Results

We randomised 551 participants (274 intervention, 277 control) from whom the primary outcome was determined for 542 (269 intervention, 273 control). There was a 40% relative increase in respiratory consultations in the intervention group: (adjusted rates (95% CI) intervention 0.57 (0.47 to 0.70), control 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52), relative rate 1.40 (1.08 to 1.82); p=0.0123). There were no significant differences in time to first respiratory consultation, total consultation rates or measures of psychological harm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $A1289 per additional respiratory consultation.

Conclusions

A behavioural intervention can significantly increase consulting for respiratory symptoms in patients at increased risk of lung cancer. This intervention could have an important role in primary care as part of a broader approach to improve respiratory health in patients at higher risk.

Trial registration number

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (1261300039 3752). This was registered pre-results.

Lung cancer mortality in Australia: Projected outcomes to 2040

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to develop and validate a statistical model which uses past trends for lung cancer mortality and historical and current data on tobacco consumption to project lung cancer mortality rates into the future for Australia.

METHODS

We used generalized linear models (GLMs) with Poisson distribution including either age, birth cohort or period, and/or various measures of population tobacco exposure (considering cross-sectional smoking prevalence, cigarettes smoked and tar exposure per capita). Sex-specific models were fitted to data for 1956-2015 and age-standardized lung cancer mortality rates were projected forward to 2040. Possible lags of 20-30 years between tobacco exposure and lung cancer mortality were examined. The best model was selected using analysis of deviance. To validate the selected model, we temporarily re-fitted it to data for 1956-1990 and compared the projected rates to 2015 with the observed rates for 1991-2015.

RESULTS

The best fitting model used information on age, birth cohort and tar exposure per capita; close concordance with the observed data was achieved in the validation. The forward projections for lung cancer mortality using this model indicate that male and female age-standardized rates will decline over the period 2011-2015 to 2036-2040 from 27.2 to 15.1 per 100,000, and 15.8 to 11.8 per 100,000, respectively. However, due to population growth and ageing the number of deaths will increase by 7.9% for males and 57.9% for females; from 41,040 (24,831 males, 16,209 females) in 2011-2015 to 52,403 (26,805 males, 25,598 females) in 2036-2040.

CONCLUSION

In the context of the mature tobacco epidemic with past peaks in tobacco consumption for both males and females, lung cancer mortality rates are expected to continually decline over the next 25 years. However, the number of lung cancer deaths will continue to be substantial, and to increase, in Australia's ageing population.