Evaluating the impact of varied compliance to lung cancer screening recommendations using a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: The US preventive services task force (USPSTF) recently recommended that individuals aged 55-80 with heavy smoking history be annually screened by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), thereby extending the stopping age from 74 to 80 compared to the national lung screening trial (NLST) entry criterion. This decision was made partly with model-based analyses from cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network (CISNET), which assumed perfect compliance to screening. METHODS: As part of CISNET, we developed a microsimulation model for lung cancer (LC) screening and calibrated and validated it using data from NLST and the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial (PLCO), respectively. We evaluated population-level outcomes of the lifetime screening program recommended by the USPSTF by varying screening compliance levels. RESULTS: Validation using PLCO shows that our model reproduces observed PLCO outcomes, predicting 884 LC cases [Expected(E)/Observed(O) = 0.99; CI 0.92-1.06] and 563 LC deaths (E/O = 0.94 CI 0.87-1.03) in the screening arm that has an average compliance rate of 87.9% over four annual screening rounds. We predict that perfect compliance to the USPSTF recommendation saves 501 LC deaths per 100,000 persons in the 1950 U.S. birth cohort; however, assuming that compliance behaviors extrapolated and varied from PLCO reduces the number of LC deaths avoided to 258, 230, and 175 as the average compliance rate over 26 annual screening rounds changes from 100 to 46, 39, and 29%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the USPSTF recommendation is expected to contribute to a reduction in LC deaths, but the magnitude of the reduction will likely be heavily influenced by screening compliance.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and a Diagnostic Biomarker.

Background: The Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) reduces the false-positive rate of lung cancer screening but introduces prolonged periods of uncertainty for indeterminate findings. We assess the cost-effectiveness of a screening program that assesses indeterminate findings earlier via a hypothetical diagnostic biomarker introduced in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines. Methods: We evaluated the performance of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on lung cancer screening with and without a hypothetical noninvasive diagnostic biomarker using a validated microsimulation model. The diagnostic biomarker assesses the malignancy of indeterminate nodules, replacing Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, and is characterized by a varying sensitivity profile that depends on nodules' size, specificity, and cost. We tested the robustness of our findings through univariate sensitivity analyses. Results: A lung cancer screening program per the USPSTF guidelines that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker with at least medium sensitivity profile and 90% specificity, that costs $250 or less, is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio lower than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year, and improves lung cancer-specific mortality reduction while requiring fewer screening exams than the USPSTF guidelines with Lung-RADS. A screening program with a biomarker costing $750 or more is not cost-effective. The health benefits accrued and costs associated with the screening program are sensitive to the disutility of indeterminate findings and specificity of the biomarker, respectively. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker, in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program and warrants further investigation.

A Method for Balancing Provider Schedules in Outpatient Specialty Clinics.

Background. Variability in outpatient specialty clinic schedules contributes to numerous adverse effects including chaotic clinic settings, provider burnout, increased patient waiting times, and inefficient use of resources. This research measures the benefit of balancing provider schedules in an outpatient specialty clinic. Design. We developed a constrained optimization model to minimize the variability in provider schedules in an outpatient specialty clinic. Schedule variability was defined as the variance in the number of providers scheduled for clinic during each hour the clinic is open. We compared the variance in the number of providers scheduled per hour resulting from the constrained optimization schedule with the actual schedule for three reference scenarios used in practice at M Health Fairview's Clinics and Surgery Center as a case study. Results. Compared to the actual schedules, use of constrained optimization modeling reduced the variance in the number of providers scheduled per hour by 92% (1.70-0.14), 88% (1.98-0.24), and 94% (1.98-0.12). When compared with the reference scenarios, the total, and per provider, assigned clinic hours remained the same. Use of constrained optimization modeling also reduced the maximum number of providers scheduled during each of the actual schedules for each of the reference scenarios. The constrained optimization schedules utilized 100% of the available clinic time compared to the reference scenario schedules where providers were scheduled during 87%, 92%, and 82% of the open clinic time, respectively. Limitations. The scheduling model's use requires a centralized provider scheduling process in the clinic. Conclusions. Constrained optimization can help balance provider schedules in outpatient specialty clinics, thereby reducing the risk of negative effects associated with highly variable clinic settings.

Provider Scheduling to Maximize Patient Access.

INTRODUCTION: We describe and demonstrate an efficient method for assigning clinic days to urology providers in academic and large urology group practices given their numerous scheduling constraints including evaluation and management visits, office or operating room procedures/surgeries, teaching, trainee mentorship, committee work and outreach activities. METHODS: We propose an integer programming model for scheduling providers for clinic shifts in order to maximize patient access to appointments considering the aforementioned scheduling constraints. We present results for a case study with an academic urology clinic and lessons learned from implementing the model generated schedule. RESULTS: The integer programming model produced a feasible schedule that was implemented after pairwise and 3-way switches among attending providers to account for preferences. The optimized schedule had reduced variability in the number of providers scheduled per shift (standard deviation 1.409 vs 0.999, p=0.01). While other confounding factors are possible we noted a significant increase in the number of encounters after implementing changes from the model (1,370 vs 1,196 encounters, p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Optimization models offer an efficient and transferable method of generating a clinic template for providers that takes into account other clinical and academic responsibilities, and can increase the number of appointments for patients. Optimization of schedules may be performed periodically to address changes in providers or provider constraints.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings.

BACKGROUND: Numerous health policy organizations recommend lung cancer screening, but no consensus exists on the optimal policy. Moreover, the impact of the Lung CT screening reporting and data system guidelines to manage small pulmonary nodules of unknown significance (a.k.a. indeterminate nodules) on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is not well established. METHODS: We assess the cost-effectiveness of 199 screening strategies that vary in terms of age and smoking eligibility criteria, using a microsimulation model. We simulate lung cancer-related events throughout the lifetime of US-representative current and former smokers. We conduct sensitivity analyses to test key model inputs and assumptions. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier consists of both annual and biennial screening strategies. Current guidelines are not on the frontier. Assuming 4% disutility associated with indeterminate findings, biennial screening for smokers aged 50-70 years with at least 40 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy using $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold yielding the highest health benefit. Among all health utilities, the cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to changes in the disutility of indeterminate findings. As the disutility of indeterminate findings decreases, screening eligibility criteria become less stringent and eventually annual screening for smokers aged 50-70 years with at least 30 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy yielding the highest health benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The disutility associated with indeterminate findings impacts the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. Efforts to quantify and better understand the impact of indeterminate findings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening are warranted.