Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2024.

BACKGROUND: Cancer surveillance data are essential to help understand where gaps exist and progress is being made in cancer control. We sought to summarize the expected impact of cancer in Canada in 2024, with projections of new cancer cases and deaths from cancer by sex and province or territory for all ages combined. METHODS: We obtained data on new cancer cases (i.e., incidence, 1984-2019) and deaths from cancer (i.e., mortality, 1984-2020) from the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database, respectively. We projected cancer incidence and mortality counts and rates to 2024 for 23 types of cancer, overall, by sex, and by province or territory. We calculated age-standardized rates using data from the 2011 Canadian standard population. RESULTS: In 2024, the number of new cancer cases and deaths from cancer are expected to reach 247 100 and 88 100, respectively. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and mortality rate (ASMR) are projected to decrease slightly from previous years for both males and females, with higher rates among males (ASIR 562.2 per 100 000 and ASMR 209.6 per 100 000 among males; ASIR 495.9 per 100 000 and ASMR 152.8 per 100 000 among females). The ASIRs and ASMRs of several common cancers are projected to continue to decrease (i.e., lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer), while those of several others are projected to increase (i.e., liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma). INTERPRETATION: Although the overall incidence of cancer and associated mortality are declining, new cases and deaths in Canada are expected to increase in 2024, largely because of the growing and aging population. Efforts in prevention, screening, and treatment have reduced the impact of some cancers, but these short-term projections highlight the potential effect of cancer on people and health care systems in Canada.

Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2022.

BACKGROUND: Regular cancer surveillance is crucial for understanding where progress is being made and where more must be done. We sought to provide an overview of the expected burden of cancer in Canada in 2022. METHODS: We obtained data on new cancer incidence from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System (1984-1991) and Canadian Cancer Registry (1992-2018). Mortality data (1984-2019) were obtained from the Canadian Vital Statistics - Death Database. We projected cancer incidence and mortality counts and rates to 2022 for 22 cancer types by sex and province or territory. Rates were age standardized to the 2011 Canadian standard population. RESULTS: An estimated 233 900 new cancer cases and 85 100 cancer deaths are expected in Canada in 2022. We expect the most commonly diagnosed cancers to be lung overall (30 000), breast in females (28 600) and prostate in males (24 600). We also expect lung cancer to be the leading cause of cancer death, accounting for 24.3% of all cancer deaths, followed by colorectal (11.0%), pancreatic (6.7%) and breast cancers (6.5%). Incidence and mortality rates are generally expected to be higher in the eastern provinces of Canada than the western provinces. INTERPRETATION: Although overall cancer rates are declining, the number of cases and deaths continues to climb, owing to population growth and the aging population. The projected high burden of lung cancer indicates a need for increased tobacco control and improvements in early detection and treatment. Success in breast and colorectal cancer screening and treatment likely account for the continued decline in their burden. The limited progress in early detection and new treatments for pancreatic cancer explains why it is expected to be the third leading cause of cancer death in Canada.

The psychosocial cost burden of cancer: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial costs, or quality of life costs, account for psychological distress, pain, suffering and other negative experiences associated with cancer. They contribute to the overall economic burden of cancer that patients experience. But this category of costs remains poorly understood. This hinders opportunities to make the best cancer control policy decisions. This study explored the psychosocial cost burden associated with cancer, how studies measure psychosocial costs and the impact of this burden. METHODS: A systematic literature review of academic and grey literature published from 2008 to 2018 was conducted by searching electronic databases, guided by the Institute of Medicine's conceptualization of psychosocial burden. Results were analyzed using a narrative synthesis and a weighted proportion of populations affected was calculated. Study quality was assessed using the Ottawa-Newcastle instrument. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included. There was variation in how psychosocial costs were conceptualized and an inconsistent approach to measurement. Most studies measured social dimensions and focused on the financial consequences of paying for care. Fewer studies assessed costs associated with the other domains of this burden, including psychological, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Fourty-four percent of cancer populations studied were impacted by psychosocial costs and this varied by disease site (38%-71%). Two studies monetized the psychosocial cost burden, estimating a lifetime cost per case ranging from CAD$427753 to CAD$528769. Studies were of varying quality; 60% of cross-sectional studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Consistency in approach to measurement would help to elevate this issue for researchers and decision makers. At two-thirds of the total economic burden of cancer, economic evaluations should account for psychosocial costs to better inform decision-making. More support is needed to address the psychosocial cost burden faced by patients and their families.

Projection du fardeau du cancer au Canada en 2024.

CONTEXTE: Les données de surveillance du cancer sont essentielles pour mieux comprendre les lacunes et les progrès réalisés dans la lutte contre le cancer. Nous avons cherché à résumer les répercussions prévues du cancer au Canada en 2024, en effectuant des projections sur les nouveaux cas de cancer et les décès par cancer, par sexe et par province ou territoire, pour tous les âges confondus. MÉTHODES: Nous avons obtenu les données sur les nouveaux cas de cancer (c.-à-d., l'incidence, 1984­2019) et les décès par cancer (c.-à-d., la mortalité, 1984­2020) du Registre canadien du cancer et de la Base canadienne de données de l'état civil ­ Décès, respectivement. Nous avons projeté les chiffres et les taux d'incidence du cancer et de mortalité jusqu'en 2024 pour 23 types de cancer, par sexe et par province ou territoire. Nous avons calculé des taux normalisés selon l'âge au moyen de données de la population type canadienne de 2011. RÉSULTATS: En 2024, les nombres de nouveaux cas de cancer et de décès causés par le cancer devraient atteindre 247 100 et 88 100, respectivement. Le taux d'incidence normalisé selon l'âge (TINA) et le taux de mortalité normalisé selon l'âge (TMNA) devraient diminuer légèrement par rapport aux années précédentes, tant chez les hommes que chez les femmes, avec des taux plus élevés chez les hommes (TINA de 562,2 pour 100 000, et TMNA de 209,6 pour 100 000 chez les hommes; TINA de 495,9 pour 100 000 et TMNA de 152,8 pour 100 000 chez les femmes). Les TINA et les TMNA de plusieurs cancers courants devraient continuer à diminuer (p. ex., cancer du poumon, cancer colorectal et cancer de la prostate), tandis que ceux de plusieurs autres cancers devraient augmenter (p. ex., cancer du foie et des voies biliaires intrahépatiques, cancer du rein, mélanome et lymphome non hodgkinien). INTERPRÉTATION: Bien que l'incidence globale du cancer et la mortalité connexe sont en déclin, il devrait y avoir une augmentation des nouveaux cas et des décès au Canada en 2024, en grande partie en raison de la croissance et du vieillissement de la population. Les efforts en matière de prévention, de dépistage et de traitement ont atténué les répercussions de certains cancers, mais ces projections à court terme soulignent l'effet potentiel du cancer sur les gens et les systèmes de soins de santé au Canada.

A randomised controlled trial of an advance care planning intervention for patients with incurable cancer.

BACKGROUND: We modified and evaluated an advance care planning (ACP) intervention, which had been shown to improve compliance with patient's end of life (EoL) wishes, in a different patient population. METHODS: Patients with incurable cancer, and a Family Member (FM), were randomised one-to-one to usual care or usual care plus an ACP intervention, between April 2014 and January 2017. Oncologists and participants were non-blinded. ACP was based on the Respecting Patient Choices model, with an offer to provide individualised ranges for typical, best-case and worst-case scenarios for survival time. Seven facilitators (two oncology nurses, two nurses and three allied health professionals) delivered the intervention within 2 weeks of study enrolment. The primary outcome measure, assessed by interviewing the FM 3 months after patient death, was the FM perception that the patient's wishes were discussed, and met. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-five patients from seven Australian metropolitan oncology centres were referred for consideration by their oncologists, 444 (67%) met the study inclusion criteria and were approached by a study researcher. Two hundred and eight patients (47%) and their FM entered the trial as dyads. Fifty-three (46%) dyads in the ACP group and 63 (54%) dyads in the usual-care group had complete primary outcome data (p = 0.16). Seventy-nine patients and 53 FMs attended an ACP discussion. Mean length of discussion was 57 min. FMs from 23 (43%) dyads allocated to ACP and 21 (33%) dyads allocated usual care reported the patient's EoL wishes were discussed and met (difference 10%, 95% CI: -2 to 8, p = 0.27). There were no differences in EoL care received, patient satisfaction with care; FM satisfaction with care or with death; or FM well being. Rates of palliative care referral were high in both groups (97% vs 96%). CONCLUSIONS: A formal ACP intervention did not increase the likelihood that EoL care was consistent with patients' preferences.

Performance of the cancer risk management model lung cancer screening module.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality in a high-risk U.S. population. A microsimulation model of LDCT screening was developed to estimate the impact of introducing population-based screening in Canada. DATA AND METHODS: LDCT screening was simulated using the lung cancer module of the Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM-LC), which generates large, representative samples of the Canadian population from which a cohort with characteristics similar to NLST participants was selected. Screening parameters were estimated for stage shift, LDCT sensitivity and specificity, lead time, and survival to fit to NLST incidence and mortality results. The estimation process was a step-wise directed search. RESULTS: Simulated mortality reduction from LDCT screening was 23% in the CRMM-LC, compared with 20% in the NLST. The difference in the number of lung cancer cases over six years varied by, at most, 2.3% in the screen arm. The difference in cumulative incidence at six years was less than 2% in both screen and control arms. The estimated percentage over-diagnosed was 24.8%, which was 6% higher than NLST results. INTERPRETATION: Simulated screening reproduces NLST results. The CRMM-LC can evaluate a variety of population-based screening strategies. Sensitivity analyses are recommended to provide a range of projections to reflect model uncertainty.

Establishing Consensus of Best Practice for CEA Use in Treatment of Severe Burns: A US Burn Provider Delphi Study.

The goal of this study was to inform standards of best practice in the use of cultured epidermal autograft (CEA), manufactured in the United States, for treatment of patients with severe burns. The study was designed using the modified Delphi technique, a method for structuring group communication among experts to promote the development of consensus-based recommendations. Known areas of variability related to the stages of CEA treatment were identified by literature review prior to the study and were confirmed through qualitative interview with the experts. The areas included Preoperative Planning/Surgical Planning, Immediate Post-Operative Care, and Rehabilitation and Long-Term Care. A list of 22 questions was developed based on interviews with the experts, and a 3round Delphi technique was used to establish consensus (≥80% agreement). Following 3 rounds (quantitative, qualitative, and virtual roundtable meeting) of the Delphi study, important guidance for use of CEA treatment in severely burned patients gained consensus. Final key recommendations included minimum burn limit for CEA treatment (30%-50% TBSA), ideal biopsy timing (1-2 days), number of grafts (enough to cover; adjust 72 hours before application), use of dermal substrates (recommended) and wide meshed autograft underlay (recommended), optimal CEA drying time per day (open air >6 hours), slings used if CEA placed on extremities (recommended), dressing changes (performed every day, all at once, with all layers removed down to bridal veil), CEA backing removal (10-14 days post placement), heat lamps (can be used to aid the wound in drying, depending on clinical judgement), initial activity restrictions lifted (beginning 10 days after backing removal), compression garments (introduced at approximately 2 months post CEA surgery), lasers (CO2 laser can be introduced between 3 and 6 months post CEA surgery).

Update on cancer incidence trends in Canada, 1984 to 2017. / Le point sur les tendances de l'incidence du cancer au Canada (1984-2017).

This paper highlights findings on cancer trends from the Canadian Cancer Statistics 2021 report. Trends were measured using annual percent change (APC) of age-standardized incidence rates. Overall, cancer incidence rates are declining (-1.1%) but the findings are specific to the type of cancer and patient sex. For example, in males, the largest decreases per year were for prostate (-4.4%), colorectal (-4.3%), lung (-3.8%), leukemia (-2.6%) and thyroid (-2.4%) cancers. In females, the largest decreases were for thyroid (-5.4%), colorectal (-3.4%) and ovarian (-3.1%) cancers.

Overall, cancer incidence is declining at a rate of −1.1% per year. In males, the two largest decreases were for prostate (−4.4% per year) and colorectal (−4.3% per year) cancer. In females, they were for thyroid (−5.4% per year) and colorectal (−3.4% per year) cancer. Melanoma (males: 2.2% per year; females: 2.0% per year) and multiple myeloma (males: 2.5% per year; females: 1.6% per year) rates are increasing. Cancer trends in Canada are dynamic and type-specific. The decreases for prostate and thyroid cancer underscore the importance of updating testing practices based on best evidence.

Dans l'ensemble, l'incidence du cancer diminue à un taux de −1,1 % par année. Les deux plus fortes baisses ont été observées chez les hommes pour le cancer de la prostate (−4,4 % par année) et le cancer colorectal (−4,3 % par année) et, chez les femmes, pour le cancer de la thyroïde (−5,4 % par année) et le cancer colorectal (−3,4 % par année). Les taux de mélanome sont en hausse (hommes : 2,2 % par année; femmes : 2,0 % par année) ainsi que ceux de myélome multiple (hommes : 2,5 % par année; femmes : 1,6 % par année). Les tendances en matière de cancer au Canada sont dynamiques et elles dépendent de chaque type de cancer. La diminution de l'incidence du cancer de la prostate et du cancer de la thyroïde souligne l'importance de mettre à jour les pratiques de dépistage à partir des meilleures données probantes.

The OncoSim-Breast Cancer Microsimulation Model.

BACKGROUND: OncoSim-Breast is a Canadian breast cancer simulation model to evaluate breast cancer interventions. This paper aims to describe the OncoSim-Breast model and how well it reproduces observed breast cancer trends. METHODS: The OncoSim-Breast model simulates the onset, growth, and spread of invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ tumours. It combines Canadian cancer incidence, mortality, screening program, and cost data to project population-level outcomes. Users can change the model input to answer specific questions. Here, we compared its projections with observed data. First, we compared the model's projected breast cancer trends with the observed data in the Canadian Cancer Registry and from Vital Statistics. Next, we replicated a screening trial to compare the model's projections with the trial's observed screening effects. RESULTS: OncoSim-Breast's projected incidence, mortality, and stage distribution of breast cancer were close to the observed data in the Canadian Cancer Registry and from Vital Statistics. OncoSim-Breast also reproduced the breast cancer screening effects observed in the UK Age trial. CONCLUSIONS: OncoSim-Breast's ability to reproduce the observed population-level breast cancer trends and the screening effects in a randomized trial increases the confidence of using its results to inform policy decisions related to early detection of breast cancer.

The Indirect Cost Burden of Cancer Care in Canada: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer poses a substantial health and economic burden on patients and caregivers in Canada. Previous reviews have estimated the indirect cost burden as work-related productivity losses associated with cancer. However, these estimates require updating and complementing with more comprehensive data that include relevant dimensions beyond labor market costs, such as patient time, lost leisure time and home productivity losses. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 that measured and reported the indirect costs borne by cancer patients and their caregivers in Canada, from the patient, caregiver, employer, and societal perspectives. Study characteristics and cost estimation methods were extracted from relevant studies. Costs estimates were reported and converted to 2020 CAD for the following categories: lost earnings, caregiving time costs, home production losses, patient time (leisure), morbidity-, disability-, premature mortality-related costs, friction costs, and overall productivity losses. A quality assessment of individual studies was conducted for included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Tool. RESULTS: In total, 3980 studies were identified, of which 18 Canadian studies met the inclusion criteria for review. One-third of the studies used or developed prediction models, 38% enrolled patient cohorts, and 27% used administrative databases. Over one-third of the studies were conducted at a national level (38%). All studies employed the human capital approach to estimate costs, and 16% also used the friction cost approach. Lost earnings were higher among self-employed patients (43% vs 24% among employees) and females ($8200 vs $3200 for males). Caregiver costs ranged from $15,786 to $20,414 per patient per year. Household productivity losses were estimated to be up to $238,904 per household per year. Patient time (leisure) costs were estimated to be between $13,000 and $18,704 per patient per year. Premature annual mortality costs were estimated to be $2.98 billion overall in Quebec. Friction costs incurred by employers were estimated between $6400 and $23,987 per patient per year. Societal productivity losses associated with cancer were estimated between $75 million to $317 million, annually. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that the indirect cost burden of cancer is considerable from the patient, caregiver, employer, and societal perspectives. This up-to-date review of the literature provides a comprehensive understanding of the indirect cost burden by including non-labor market activity costs and by examining all relevant perspectives. These results provide a strong case for the government and employers to ensure there are supports in place to help patients and caregivers buffer the impact of cancer so they can continue to engage in productive activities and enjoy leisure time.

The Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden of Cancer Care-A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs pose a substantial economic burden to cancer patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the literature on out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the out-of-pocket cost burden faced by cancer patients and their caregivers. The average monthly out-of-pocket costs per patient were reported/estimated and converted to 2018 USD. Costs were reported as medical and non-medical costs and were reported across countries or country income levels by cancer site, where possible, and category. The out-of-pocket burden was estimated as the average proportion of income spent as non-reimbursable costs. RESULTS: Among all cancers, adult patients and caregivers in the U.S. spent between USD 180 and USD 2600 per month, compared to USD 15-400 in Canada, USD 4-609 in Western Europe, and USD 58-438 in Australia. Patients with breast or colorectal cancer spent around USD 200 per month, while pediatric cancer patients spent USD 800. Patients spent USD 288 per month on cancer medications in the U.S. and USD 40 in other high-income countries (HICs). The average costs for medical consultations and in-hospital care were estimated between USD 40-71 in HICs. Cancer patients and caregivers spent 42% and 16% of their annual income on out-of-pocket expenses in low- and middle-income countries and HICs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that cancer is associated with high out-of-pocket costs. Healthcare systems have an opportunity to improve the coverage of medical and non-medical costs for cancer patients to help alleviate this burden and ensure equitable access to care.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt. INTERPRETATION: Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.

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

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend low-dose CT (LDCT) screening to detect lung cancer among eligible at-risk individuals. We used the OncoSim model (formerly Cancer Risk Management Model) to compare outcomes and costs between annual and biennial LDCT screening. METHODS: OncoSim incorporates vital statistics, cancer registry data, health survey and utility data, cost, and other data, and simulates individual lives, aggregating outcomes over millions of individuals. Using OncoSim and National Lung Screening Trial eligibility criteria (age 55-74, minimum 30 pack-year smoking history, smoking cessation less than 15 years from time of first screen) and data, we have modeled screening parameters, cancer stage distribution, and mortality shifts for screen diagnosed cancer. Costs (in 2008 Canadian dollars) and quality of life years gained are discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Compared with annual LDCT screening, biennial screening used fewer resources, gained fewer life-years (61,000 vs. 77,000), but resulted in very similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (24,000 vs. 23,000) over 20 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of annual compared with biennial screening was $54,000-$4.8 million/QALY gained. Average incremental CT scan use in biennial screening was 52% of that in annual screening. A smoking cessation intervention decreased the average cost-effectiveness ratio in most scenarios by half. CONCLUSIONS: Over 20 years, biennial LDCT screening for lung cancer appears to provide similar benefit in terms of QALYs gained to annual screening and is more cost-effective. Further study of biennial screening should be undertaken in population screening programs. A smoking cessation program should be integrated into either screening strategy.

Eligibility for low-dose computerized tomography screening among asbestos-exposed individuals.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to incorporate an estimate of risk for asbestos exposure in the Canadian Cancer Risk Management Lung Cancer (CRMM-LC) microsimulation model. METHODS: In CRMM-LC, a 3-year probability of developing lung cancer can be derived from different risk profiles. An asbestos-exposed cohort was simulated and different scenarios of low-dose computerized tomography (LDCT) screening were simulated. RESULTS: As annual LDCT screening among non-asbestos-exposed individuals is less cost-effective than biennial screening, all the scenarios modeled for an asbestos-exposed cohort were biennial. For individuals with a two-fold risk of asbestos-induced lung cancer to be eligible for biennial LDCT screening, a smoking history of ≥15 pack-years would be necessary. For non-smokers with asbestos exposure resulting in a relative risk (RR) for lung cancer, it is not cost-effective to screen those with a RR of 5, but it is cost-effective to screen those with a RR of 10 (the heavily exposed). CONCLUSION: Asbestos-exposed individuals with an estimated two-fold or more risk of lung cancer from asbestos-exposure are eligible for LDCT screening at all ages from 55-74 years if they have a cigarette smoking history of ≥15 pack-years. Asbestos-exposed individuals who are lifelong non-smokers are eligible for LDCT screening at all ages from 55-74 years if they have accumulated a degree of asbestos exposure resulting in an estimated risk of lung cancer of ≥10.

Cost-effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening in Canada.

IMPORTANCE: The US National Lung Screening Trial supports screening for lung cancer among smokers using low-dose computed tomographic (LDCT) scans. The cost-effectiveness of screening in a publically funded health care system remains a concern. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of LDCT scan screening for lung cancer within the Canadian health care system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM) simulated individual lives within the Canadian population from 2014 to 2034, incorporating cancer risk, disease management, outcome, and cost data. Smokers and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening (30 pack-year smoking history, ages 55-74 years, for the reference scenario) were modeled, and performance parameters were calibrated to the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The reference screening scenario assumes annual scans to age 75 years, 60% participation by 10 years, 70% adherence to screening, and unchanged smoking rates. The CRMM outputs are aggregated, and costs (2008 Canadian dollars) and life-years are discounted 3% annually. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Compared with no screening, the reference scenario saved 51,000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CaD $52,000/QALY. If smoking history is modeled for 20 or 40 pack-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CaD $62,000 and CaD $43,000/QALY, respectively, were generated. Changes in participation rates altered life years saved but not the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is sensitive to changes in adherence. An adjunct smoking cessation program improving the quit rate by 22.5% improves the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to CaD $24,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Lung cancer screening with LDCT appears cost-effective in the publicly funded Canadian health care system. An adjunct smoking cessation program has the potential to improve outcomes.