• Appl Health Econ Health Policy · Aug 2016

    Review

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

    • Adam J N Raymakers, John Mayo, Stephen Lam, J Mark FitzGerald, WhitehurstDavid G TDGTFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada., and Larry D Lynd.
    • Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Room 4102-2405 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada. raymaker@mail.ubc.ca.
    • Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Aug 1; 14 (4): 409-418.

    BackgroundLung 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.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically review the literature analyzing the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening using LDCT.MethodsWe 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$).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…