Cost-effectiveness of risk-based low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Switzerland.

Throughout Europe, computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer is in a phase of clinical implementation or reimbursement evaluation. To efficiently select individuals for screening, the use of lung cancer risk models has been suggested, but their incremental (cost-)effectiveness relative to eligibility based on pack-year criteria has not been thoroughly evaluated for a European setting. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pack-year and risk-based screening (PLCOm2012 model-based) strategies for Switzerland, which aided in informing the recommendations of the Swiss Cancer Screening Committee (CSC). We use the MISCAN (MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis)-Lung model to estimate benefits and harms of screening among individuals born 1940 to 1979 in Switzerland. We evaluate 1512 strategies, differing in the age ranges employed for screening, the screening interval and the strictness of the smoking requirements. We estimate risk-based strategies to be more cost-effective than pack-year-based screening strategies. The most efficient strategy compliant with CSC recommendations is biennial screening for ever-smokers aged 55 to 80 with a 1.6% PLCOm2012 risk. Relative to no screening this strategy is estimated to reduce lung cancer mortality by 11.0%, with estimated costs per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) gained of €19 341, and a €1.990 billion 15-year budget impact. Biennial screening ages 55 to 80 for those with 20 pack-years shows a lower mortality reduction (10.5%) and higher cost per QALY gained (€20 869). Despite model uncertainties, our estimates suggest there may be cost-effective screening policies for Switzerland. Risk-based biennial screening ages 55 to 80 for those with ≥1.6% PLCOm2012 risk conforms to CSC recommendations and is estimated to be more efficient than pack-year-based alternatives.

Assessing the impact of increasing lung screening eligibility by relaxing the maximum years-since-quit threshold: A simulation modeling study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force expanded its lung screening recommendation to include persons aged 50-80 years who had ever smoked and had at least 20 pack-years of exposure and less than 15 years since quitting (YSQ). However, studies have suggested that screening persons who formerly smoked with longer YSQ could be beneficial. METHODS: The authors used two validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening using various YSQ thresholds (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and no YSQ) and the age at which screening was stopped. The impact of enforcing the YSQ criterion only at entry, but not at exit, also was evaluated. Outcomes included the number of screens, the percentage ever screened, screening benefits (lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained), and harms (false-positive tests, overdiagnosed cases, radiation-induced lung cancer deaths). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of restricting screening to those who had at least 5 years of life expectancy. RESULTS: As the YSQ criterion was relaxed, the number of screens and the benefits and harms of screening increased. Raising the age at which to stop screening age resulted in additional benefits but with more overdiagnosis, as expected, because screening among those older than 80 years increased. Limiting screening to those who had at least 5 years of life expectancy would maintain most of the benefits while considerably reducing the harms. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding screening to persons who formerly smoked and have greater than 15 YSQ would result in considerable increases in deaths averted and life-years gained. Although additional harms would occur, these could be moderated by ensuring that screening is restricted to only those with reasonable life expectancy.

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds. DESIGN: Comparative modeling analysis. DATA SOURCES: National Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator. TARGET POPULATION: 1960 U.S. birth cohort. TIME HORIZON: 45 years. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care sector. INTERVENTION: Annual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: Risk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions. LIMITATION: Risk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors. CONCLUSION: Risk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Projected effectiveness of lung cancer screening and concurrent smoking cessation support in the Netherlands.

Background: The NELSON trial demonstrated a 24% intention-to-screen reduction in lung cancer mortality from regular screening with low-dose computed tomography. Implementation efforts in Europe are ongoing, but still await country-specific and NELSON-adapted estimates of the benefits and harms of screening. Methods: We use the MISCAN-Lung microsimulation model, calibrated to individual-level outcomes from the NELSON trial, to estimate the effectiveness under 100% compliance of biennial lung cancer screening with concomitant smoking cessation support for Dutch cohorts 1942-1961. The model simulates smoking behaviour, lung cancer incidence and the effects of screening and smoking cessation on lung- and other-cause mortality. Findings: We find biennial screening with eligibility criteria equal to those of the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN implementation trial to reduce lung cancer mortality by 16.9% among the eligible population, equivalent to 1076 LC deaths prevented per year in the next two decades. Eligible individuals constitute 21.5% of the cohorts studied, and stand to face 61% of the projected lung cancer mortality burden in the absence of screening. 10.3 life-years are gained per prevented LC death, for 14.9 screens per life year gained. Concomitant smoking cessation interventions may increase the expected gains in life years from screening by up to 20%. Interpretation: Policy makers should imminently consider the implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe, paired with effective smoking cessation interventions. Smoking cessation interventions on their own are not estimated to yield a gain in remaining life expectancy of the magnitude offered by even a single CT screen. Funding: European UnionHorizon 2020 grant 848294: 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN.

Medical costs of lung cancer by stage, histology and first-line treatment modality in the Netherlands (2012-2021).

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with lung cancer treatment presenting a significant financial burden. The treatment landscape has recently shifted, seeing an increase in targeted- and immunotherapies. Such treatments are expensive, but estimates of the medical costs of the lung cancer treatment pathway largely predate their introduction. METHODS: We link medical expenditures of individuals resident in the Netherlands (n = 19.2 m) for 2013-2021 to tumour-level (n = 137,129, incident 2012-2021) Netherlands Cancer Registry data. We estimate lung cancer-attributable costs by phase of care (initial, continuing and terminal), stratified by cancer stage and histology, and observe trends in medical costs over time. RESULTS: We estimate mean costs over the lung cancer treatment pathway to be €48,443 per patient. Total medical costs are highest in the initial phase, followed by the terminal and continuing phase. Monthly treatment for stage IV lung cancer is significantly more expensive than for early-stage disease (€8293 per month of initial care relative to €3228 for stage IA). Stage IV lung cancer has become significantly more expensive to treat 2018-2021 relative to 2013-2017, with monthly expenditures rising 55 % in initial care and 148 % in continuing care. Population-wide, we find €900.6 million spent on lung cancer care in 2021, €433 million more than in 2016, of which €307.3 million is attributed to per-patient expenditure trends. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment advances are quickly inflating medical costs for late-stage lung cancer. Policy makers should carefully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments, and incorporate stage-specific treatment costs in evaluating interventions for early detection.

The Impact of Model Assumptions on Personalized Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding personalized lung cancer screening are being informed by natural-history modeling. Therefore, understanding how differences in model assumptions affect model-based personalized screening recommendations is essential. DESIGN: Five Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models were evaluated. Lung cancer incidence, mortality, and stage distributions were compared across 4 theoretical scenarios to assess model assumptions regarding 1) sojourn times, 2) stage-specific sensitivities, and 3) screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions. Analyses were stratified by sex and smoking behavior. RESULTS: Most cancers had sojourn times <5 y (model range [MR]; lowest to highest value across models: 83.5%-98.7% of cancers). However, cancer aggressiveness still varied across models, as demonstrated by differences in proportions of cancers with sojourn times <2 y (MR: 42.5%-64.6%) and 2 to 4 y (MR: 28.8%-43.6%). Stage-specific sensitivity varied, particularly for stage I (MR: 31.3%-91.5%). Screening reduced stage IV incidence in most models for 1 y postscreening; increased sensitivity prolonged this period to 2 to 5 y. Screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions among lung cancers detected at screening ranged widely (MR: 14.6%-48.9%), demonstrating variations in modeled treatment effectiveness of screen-detected cases. All models assumed longer sojourn times and greater screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for women. Models assuming differences in cancer epidemiology by smoking behaviors assumed shorter sojourn times and lower screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions for heavy smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Model-based personalized screening recommendations are primarily driven by assumptions regarding sojourn times (favoring longer intervals for groups more likely to develop less aggressive cancers), sensitivity (higher sensitivities favoring longer intervals), and screening-induced mortality reductions (greater reductions favoring shorter intervals). IMPLICATIONS: Models suggest longer screening intervals may be feasible and benefits may be greater for women and light smokers. HIGHLIGHTS: Natural-history models are increasingly used to inform lung cancer screening, but causes for variations between models are difficult to assess.This is the first evaluation of these causes and their impact on personalized screening recommendations through easily interpretable metrics.Models vary regarding sojourn times, stage-specific sensitivities, and screening-induced lung cancer mortality reductions.Model outcomes were similar in predicting greater screening benefits for women and potentially light smokers. Longer screening intervals may be feasible for women and light smokers.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.

IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050. EXPOSURES: Low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective. RESULTS: The 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.