Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Thresholds for Subsolid Pulmonary Nodules in CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Background Guidelines such as the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) are available for determining when subsolid nodules should be treated within lung cancer screening programs, but they are based on expert opinion. Purpose To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of varying treatment thresholds for subsolid nodules within a lung cancer screening setting by using a simulation model. Materials and Methods A previously developed model simulated 10 million current and former smokers undergoing CT lung cancer screening who were assumed to have a ground-glass nodule (GGN) at baseline. Nodules were allowed to grow and to develop solid components over time according to a monthly cycle and lifetime horizon. Management strategies generated by varying treatment thresholds, including the solid component size and use of the Brock risk calculator, were tested. For each strategy, average U.S. costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient were computed, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of those on the efficient frontier were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of results were performed by varying several relevant parameters, such as treatment costs or malignancy growth rates. Results Variants of the Lung-RADS guidelines that did not treat pure GGNs were cost-effective. Strategies based on the Brock risk calculator did not reach the efficient frontier. The strategy with the highest QALYs under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY included no treatment of GGNs and a threshold of 4-mm solid component size for treatment of subsolid nodules. This strategy yielded an ICER of $52 993 per QALY (95% CI: 44 407, 64 372). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed this was the optimal strategy under a range of parameter variations. Conclusion Treatment of pure ground-glass nodules was not cost-effective. Strategies that use modifications of the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System guidelines were cost-effective for treating part-solid nodules; an optimal threshold of 4 mm for the solid component yielded the most quality-adjusted life years. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

A Decision Analysis of Follow-up and Treatment Algorithms for Nonsolid Pulmonary Nodules.

Purpose To evaluate management strategies and treatment options for patients with ground-glass nodules (GGNs) by using decision-analysis models. Materials and Methods A simulation was developed for 1 000 000 hypothetical patients with GGNs undergoing follow-up per the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations. The initial age range was 55-75 years (mean, 64 years). Nodules could grow and develop solid components over time. Clinically significant malignancy rates were calibrated to data from the National Lung Screening Trial. Annual versus 3-year-interval follow-up of Lung-RADS category 2 nodules was compared, and different treatment strategies were tested (stereotactic body radiation therapy, surgery, and no therapy). Results Overall, 2.3% (22 584 of 1 000 000) of nodules were clinically significant malignancies; 6.3% (62 559 of 1 000 000) of nodules were treated. Only 30% (18 668 of 62 559) of Lung-RADS category 4B or 4X nodules were clinically significant malignancies. The risk of clinically significant malignancy for persistent nonsolid nodules after baseline was higher than Lung-RADS estimates for categories 2 and 3 (3% vs <1% and 1%-2%, respectively). Overall survival (OS) at 10 years was 72% (527 827 of 737 306; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 71%, 72%) with annual follow-up and 71% (526 507 of 737 306; 95% CI: 71%, 72%) with 3-year-interval follow-up (P < .01). At 10 years, OS among patients whose nodules progressed to Lung-RADS category 4B or 4X was 80% after radiation therapy (49 945 of 62 559; 95% CI: 80%, 80%), 79% after surgery (49 139 of 62 559; 95% CI: 78%, 79%), and 74% after no therapy (46 512 of 62 559; 95% CI: 74%, 75%) (P < .01). Conclusion Simulation modeling suggests that the follow-up interval for evaluating ground-glass nodules can be increased from 1 year to 3 years with minimal change in outcomes. Stereotactic body radiation therapy demonstrated the best outcomes compared with lobectomy and with no therapy for nonsolid nodules. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Cost-Effectiveness of Follow-Up for Subsolid Pulmonary Nodules in High-Risk Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a number of follow-up guidelines and variants for subsolid pulmonary nodules. METHODS: We used a simulation model informed by data from the literature and the National Lung Screening Trial to simulate patients with ground-glass nodules (GGNs) detected at baseline computed tomography undergoing follow-up. The nodules were allowed to grow and develop solid components over time. We tested the guidelines generated by varying follow-up recommendations for low-risk nodules, that is, pure GGNs or those stable over time. For each guideline, we computed average US costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and identified the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of those on the efficient frontier. In addition, we compared the costs and effects of the most recently released version of the Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), version 1.1, with those of the previous version, 1.0. Finally, we performed sensitivity analyses of our results by varying several relevant parameters. RESULTS: Relative to the no follow-up scenario, the follow-up guideline system that was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY and had the greatest QALY assigned low-risk nodules a 2-year follow-up interval and stopped follow-up after 2 years for GGNs and after 5 years for part-solid nodules; this strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $99,970. Lung-RADS version 1.1 was found to be less costly but no less effective than Lung-RADS version 1.0. These findings were essentially stable under a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Ceasing follow-up for low-risk subsolid nodules after 2 to 5 years of stability is more cost-effective than perpetual follow-up. Lung-RADS version 1.1 was cheaper but similarly effective to version 1.0.