Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in an Iranian high-risk population

Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study

BACKGROUND

Annual screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended for heavy smokers. However, it is questionable whether all individuals require annual screening given the potential harms of LDCT screening. This study examines the benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening in heavy smokers and determines the optimal risk threshold for screening and risk-stratified screening intervals.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis in China, using a cohort-based Markov model which simulated a lung cancer screening cohort of 19,146 heavy smokers aged 50 ~ 74 years old, who had a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and were either current smokers or had quit for < 15 years. A total of 34 risk-based screening strategies, varying by different risk groups for screening eligibility and screening intervals (1-year, 2-year, 3-year, one-off, non-screening), were evaluated and were compared with annual screening for all heavy smokers (the status quo strategy). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective with a 30-year time horizon. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was adopted as three times the gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 2021 (CNY 242,928) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Compared with the status quo strategy, nine risk-based screening strategies were found to be cost-effective, with two of them even resulting in cost-saving. The most cost-effective strategy was the risk-based approach of annual screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of ≥ 1.70%, biennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of 1.03 ~ 1.69%, and triennial screening for individuals with a 5-year risk threshold of < 1.03%. This strategy had the highest incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of CNY 1032. All risk-based screening strategies were more efficient than the status quo strategy, requiring 129 ~ 656 fewer screenings per lung cancer death avoided, and 0.5 ~ 28 fewer screenings per life-year gained. The cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening was further improved when individual adherence to screening improved and individuals quit smoking after being screened.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-based screening strategies are more efficient in reducing lung cancer deaths and gaining life years compared to the status quo strategy. Risk-stratified screening intervals can potentially balance long-term benefit-harm trade-offs and improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screenings.

Lung Cancer Screening in Brazil Comparing the 2013 and 2021 USPSTF Guidelines

Importance

It is estimated that, from 2023 to 2025, lung cancer (LC) will be the second most frequent cancer in Brazil, but the country does not have an LC screening (LCS) policy.

Objective

To compare the number of individuals eligible for screening, 5-year preventable LC deaths, and years of life gained (YLG) if LC death is averted by LCS, considering 3 eligibility strategies by sociodemographic characteristics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This comparative effectiveness research study assessed 3 LCS criteria by applying a modified version of the LC-Death Risk Assessment Tool (LCDRAT) and the LC-Risk Assessment Tool (LCRAT). Data are from the 2019 Brazilian National Household Survey. Participants included ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years. Data analysis was performed from February to May 2023.

Exposures

Exposures included ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 guidelines (ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 years with ≥30 pack-years and <15 years since cessation), and USPSTF 2021 guidelines (ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years with 20 pack-years and <15 years since cessation).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the numbers of individuals eligible for LCS, the 5-year preventable deaths attributable to LC, and the number of YLGs if death due to LC was averted by LCS.

Results

In Brazil, the eligible population for LCS was 27 280 920 ever-smokers aged 50 to 80 years (13 387 552 female [49.1%]; 13 249 531 [48.6%] aged 50-60 years; 394 994 Asian or Indigenous [1.4%]; 3 111 676 Black [11.4%]; 10 942 640 Pardo [40.1%]; 12 830 904 White [47.0%]; 12 428 536 [45.6%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 12 860 132 [47.1%] living in the Southeast region); 5 144 322 individuals met the USPSTF 2013 criteria for LCS (2 090 636 female [40.6%]; 2 290 219 [44.5%] aged 61-70 years; 66 430 Asian or Indigenous [1.3%]; 491 527 Black [9.6%]; 2 073 836 Pardo [40.3%]; 2 512 529 [48.8%] White; 2 436 221 [47.4%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 2 577 300 [50.1%] living in the Southeast region), and 8 380 279 individuals met the USPSTF 2021 LCS criteria (3 507 760 female [41.9%]; 4 352 740 [51.9%] aged 50-60 years; 119 925 Asian or Indigenous [1.4%]; 839 171 Black [10.0%]; 3 330 497 Pardo [39.7%]; 4 090 687 [48.8%] White; 4 022 784 [48.0%] with an incomplete middle school education; and 4 162 070 [49.7%] living in the Southeast region). The number needed to screen to prevent 1 death was 177 individuals according to the USPSTF 2013 criteria and 242 individuals according to the USPSTF 2021 criteria. The YLG was 23 for all ever-smokers, 19 for the USPSTF 2013 criteria, and 21 for the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Being Black, having less than a high school education, and living in the North and Northeast regions were associated with increased 5-year risk of LC death.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness study, USPSTF 2021 criteria were better than USPSTF 2013 in reducing disparities in LC death rates. Nonetheless, the risk of LC death remained unequal, and these results underscore the importance of identifying an appropriate approach for high-risk populations for LCS, considering the local epidemiological context.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Risk Factor-Based Lung Cancer Screening Program by Low-Dose Computer Tomography in Current Smokers in China

Although the effectiveness of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could be shown in China, there could be variation in the evidence concerning the economic impact. Our study explores the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and optimizes the best definition of a high-risk population. A Markov model consisting of the natural history and post-diagnosis states was constructed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of LDCT screening compared with no screening. A total of 36 distinct risk factor-based screening strategies were assessed by incorporating starting ages of 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 years, stopping ages of 69, 74 and 79 years as well as smoking eligibility criteria. Screening data came from community-based mass screening with LDCT for lung cancer in Guangzhou. Compared with no screening, all screening scenarios led to incremental costs and QALYs. When the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was USD37,653, three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China, six of nine strategies on the efficiency frontier may be cost-effective. Annual screening between 55 and 79 years of age for those who smoked more than 20 pack-years, which yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD35,000.00 per QALY gained, was considered optimal. In sensitivity analyses, the result was stable in most cases. The trends of the results are roughly the same in scenario analyses. According to the WTP threshold of different regions, the optimal screening strategies were annual screening for those who smoked more than 20 pack-years, between 50 and 79 years of age in Zhejiang province, 55-79 years in Guangdong province and 65-74 years in Yunnan province. However, annual screening was unlikely to be cost-effective in Heilongjiang province under our modelling assumptions, indicating that tailored screening policies should be made regionally according to the local epidemiological and economic situation.

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 .

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review Assessing Strategy Comparison and Risk Stratification

OBJECTIVES

Our first study objective was to assess the range of lung cancer screening intervals compared within cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and to examine the implications for the strategies identified as optimally cost effective; the second objective was to examine if and how risk subgroup-specific policies were considered.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for model-based CEAs of LDCT lung screening. The retrieved studies were assessed to examine if the analyses considered sufficient strategy variation to permit incremental estimation of cost effectiveness. Regarding risk selection, we examined if analyses considered alternative risk strata in separate analyses or as alternative risk-based eligibility criteria for screening.

RESULTS

The search identified 33 eligible CEAs, 23 of which only considered one screening frequency. Of the 10 analyses considering multiple screening intervals, only 4 included intervals longer than 2 years. Within the 10 studies considering multiple intervals, the optimal policy choice would differ in 5 if biennial intervals or longer had not been considered. Nineteen studies conducted risk subgroup analyses, 12 of which assumed that subgroup-specific policies were possible and 7 of which assumed that a common screening policy applies to all those screened.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison of multiple strategies is recognised as good practice in CEA when seeking optimal policies. Studies that do include multiple intervals indicate that screening intervals longer than 1 year can be relevant. The omission of intervals of 2 years or longer from CEAs of LDCT screening could lead to the adoption of sub-optimal policies. There also is scope for greater consideration of risk-stratified policies which tailor screening intensity to estimated disease risk. Policy makers should take care when interpreting current evidence before implementing lung screening.