The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk prediction models have the potential to make programs more affordable; however, the economic evidence is limited. METHODS: Participants in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) were retrospectively identified with the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The high-risk subgroup was assessed for lung cancer incidence and demographic characteristics compared with those in the low-risk subgroup and the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan), which is an observational study that was high-risk-selected in Canada. A comparison of high-risk screening versus standard care was made with a decision-analytic model using data from the NLST with Canadian cost data from screening and treatment in the PanCan study. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty and identify drivers of program efficiency. RESULTS: Use of the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial with a threshold set at 2% over 6 years would have reduced the number of individuals who needed to be screened in the NLST by 81%. High-risk screening participants in the NLST had more adverse demographic characteristics than their counterparts in the PanCan study. High-risk screening would cost $20,724 (in 2015 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained with a probability of 0.62. Cost-effectiveness was driven primarily by non-lung cancer outcomes. Higher noncurative drug costs or current costs for immunotherapy and targeted therapies in the United States would render lung cancer screening a cost-saving intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Non-lung cancer outcomes drive screening efficiency in diverse, tobacco-exposed populations. Use of risk selection can reduce the budget impact, and screening may even offer cost savings if noncurative treatment costs continue to rise.

Resource utilization and costs during the initial years of lung cancer screening with computed tomography in Canada.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that millions of North Americans would qualify for lung cancer screening and that billions of dollars of national health expenditures would be required to support population-based computed tomography lung cancer screening programs. The decision to implement such programs should be informed by data on resource utilization and costs. METHODS: Resource utilization data were collected prospectively from 2059 participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Participants who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 3 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from seven major cities across Canada. A cost analysis was conducted from the Canadian public payer's perspective for resources that were used for the screening and treatment of lung cancer in the initial years of the study. RESULTS: The average per-person cost for screening individuals with LDCT was $453 (95% confidence interval [CI], $400-$505) for the initial 18-months of screening following a baseline scan. The screening costs were highly dependent on the detected lung nodule size, presence of cancer, screening intervention, and the screening center. The mean per-person cost of treating lung cancer with curative surgery was $33,344 (95% CI, $31,553-$34,935) over 2 years. This was lower than the cost of treating advanced-stage lung cancer with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or supportive care alone, ($47,792; 95% CI, $43,254-$52,200; p = 0.061). CONCLUSION: In the Pan-Canadian study, the average cost to screen individuals with a high risk for developing lung cancer using LDCT and the average initial cost of curative intent treatment were lower than the average per-person cost of treating advanced stage lung cancer which infrequently results in a cure.

Pathologic assessment of radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate pathologically the effectiveness of radiofrequency (RF) ablation in the treatment of pulmonary metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with multiple pulmonary metastases scheduled for surgical resection were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent RF ablation of one percutaneously accessible tumor and within 2-4 weeks underwent surgical resection of the ablated tumor and any additional lesions. Resected tumors all were assessed by routine light microscopy, and selected tumors were assessed by immunohistochemistry with MIB1 and proliferative cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). Relationship of ablation zone to the tumor and viability of the ablated tumors were assessed. RESULTS: Nine patients (four men and five women) 46-76 years of age were included in the study. Four patients had metastatic colorectal carcinoma, and five patients had metastases from soft tissue sarcomas. Ablated tumors ranged from 1.0-3.0 cm in diameter. Each target lesion was completely encompassed by the ablation zone. All tumor tissue within the ablation zone showed characteristic changes of coagulative necrosis with hematoxylin and eosin staining. Tumors showed preservation of MIB1 staining but loss of PCNA protein staining. RF ablation resulted in complete coagulative necrosis of all the pulmonary metastases treated in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Although this series is small, it provides histologic support for RF ablation as an effective treatment for selected pulmonary metastases.

Preoperative assessment: an anesthesiologist's perspective.

Advances in anesthesia and surgery have made it so that almost any patient with a resectable lung malignancy is now an operative candidate given a full understanding of the risks and after appropriate investigation. This situation necessitates a change in the paradigm that anesthesiologists use for preoperative assessment. Understanding and stratifying the perioperative risks allows the anesthesiologist to develop a systematic focused approach to these patients at the time of the initial contact and immediately before induction, which can be used to guide anesthetic management.