• C C Liu, J F Shi, G X Liu, W Tang, X Zhang, F Li, L Wang, Y Ma, K Su, S J Zhao, Y B Gao, N Li, W Q Chen, N Wu, and M Dai.
• Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
• Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2019 Feb 10; 40 (2): 218-226.

AbstractObjective: From the economic point of view, this study was to systematically assess the status quo on lung cancer screening in the world and to provide reference for further research and implementation of the programs, in China. Methods: PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library,CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched to gather papers on studies related to economic evaluation regarding lung cancer screening worldwide, from the inception of studies to June 30(th), 2018. Basic characteristics, methods and main results were extracted. Quality of studies was assessed. Cost were converted to Chinese Yuan under the exchange rates from the World Bank. The ratio of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to local GDP per capita were calculated. Results: A total of 23 studies (only 1 randomized controlled trial) were included and the overall quality was accepted. 22 studies were from the developed countries. Nearly half of the studies (11 studies) took 55 years old as the starting age of the screening program. Smoking history was widely applied for the selection of criteria on target populations (18). Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was involved in every study used to evaluate the economic effectiveness. Annual (17) and once-life time (7) screening were more common frequencies. 22 studies reported ICERs for LDCT screening, compared to no screening, of which 17 were less than 3 times local GDP per capita, and were considered as cost-effectiveness, according to the WHO's recommendation. 15 and 7 studies reported ICERs for annual and once-life time screening, of which 12 and 7 studies were in favor the results of their cost-effectiveness, respectively. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of once-lifetime screening was likely to be superior to the annual screening. Differences of cost-effectiveness among the subgroups, by starting age or by the smoking history, might exist. Conclusions: Based on the studies, evidence from the developed countries demonstrated that LDCT screening programs on lung cancer, implemented among populations selected by age and smoking history, generally appeared more cost-effective. Combined with the local situation of health resource, the findings could provide direction for less developed regions/countries lacking of local evidence. Low frequency of LDCT screening for lung cancer could be adopted when budget was limited. Data on starting ages, smoking history and other important components related to the strategy of screening programs, needs to be precisely evaluated under the situation of local population.

16 keywords...

hide…