Biennial lung cancer screening in Canada with smoking cessation—outcomes and cost-effectiveness

Goffin, John R.; Flanagan, W. Michael; Miller, Anthony B.; Memon, S.; Wolfson, Michael; Evans, William K.

doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.09.013

Cited by 51 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in concordance with the findings of a recently published Canadian study [24]. However, another Canadian study, which incorporated quality of life, found biennial screening intervals to be superior to annual screening intervals [59].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Cost-utility analysis of a potential lung cancer screening program for a high-risk population in Germany: A modelling approach

Hofer¹,

Kauczor

Stargardt³

2018

Lung Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Germany. Although several randomized trials in Europe have evaluated the effectiveness of lung cancer screening programs, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is scarce. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a population-based lung cancer screening program from the perspective of a German payer. Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the public payer perspective for a high-risk population defined as heavy former and current smokers (≥20 cigarettes per day) between 55 and 75 years of age. The underlying model consisted of two Markov models. We differentiated between a population-based annual screening program and standard clinical care. Depending on stage at diagnosis, simulated patients were assigned to one of five treatment paths according to the German clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Costs, life years saved, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as outcomes. Values for input parameters were taken from the literature. The model was run for 60 cycles with a cycle length of three months. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: In the base case, annual lung cancer screening led to an increase in incremental costs (€ 1,153 per person) compared to standard clinical care. However, the screening approach was associated with an incremental gain in life years (0.06 per person) and QALYs (0.04 per person). Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was € 19,302 per life year saved and € 30,291 per QALY. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 draws resulted in average ICERs of € 22,118 per life year and € 34,841 per QALY. Conclusion: We provide evidence that lung cancer screening for a high-risk population may be more effective, but also more costly, than standard clinical care from the perspective of a German payer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Cost-utility analysis of a potential lung cancer screening program for a high-risk population in Germany: A modelling approach

Hofer¹,

Kauczor

Stargardt³

2018

Lung Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The costs of adding a cessation intervention to an LDCT lung cancer screening programme increase the total cost by a few to over a dozen percent. At the same time, the cost effectiveness as measured by quality-adjusted life years gained increases 1.7-to 5.4-fold [95].…”

Section: Smoking Cessation Programmementioning

confidence: 92%

Consensus Statement on a Screening Programme for the Detection of Early Lung Cancer in Poland

Rzyman

Didkowska

Dziedzic

et al. 2018

Advances in Respiratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A major Canadian effort buttressed the growing evidence on the cost-efficiency of providing high-quality lung cancer screening services while still providing a public health benefit. 38,39 When conservative assumptions were used, an analysis of screening benefit was favorable relative to its impact on person-years of life saved. However, each nation has to make its own decision relative to the complex array of health priorities in each distinctive national setting.…”

Section: Lung Cancer Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Advances in Thoracic Oncology 2016

Soo

Cummings

Jett

et al. 2017

Journal of Thoracic Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lung cancer care is rapidly changing with advances in genomic testing, the development of next-generation targeted kinase inhibitors, and the continued broad study of immunotherapy in new settings and potential combinations. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and the Journal of Thoracic Oncology publish this annual update to help readers keep pace with these important developments. Experts in thoracic cancer and care provide focused updates across multiple areas, including prevention and early detection, molecular diagnostics, pathology and staging, surgery, adjuvant therapy, radiotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, and immunotherapy for NSCLC, SCLC, and mesothelioma. Quality and value of care and perspectives on the future of lung cancer research and treatment have also been included in this concise review.

show abstract

Biennial lung cancer screening in Canada with smoking cessation—outcomes and cost-effectiveness

Cited by 51 publications

References 15 publications

Cost-utility analysis of a potential lung cancer screening program for a high-risk population in Germany: A modelling approach

Cost-utility analysis of a potential lung cancer screening program for a high-risk population in Germany: A modelling approach

Consensus Statement on a Screening Programme for the Detection of Early Lung Cancer in Poland

Scientific Advances in Thoracic Oncology 2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About