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.

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.

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 and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US.

Importance: The revised 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer screening have been shown to reduce disparities in screening eligibility and performance between African American and White individuals vs the 2013 guidelines. However, potential disparities across other racial and ethnic groups in the US remain unknown. Risk model-based screening may reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance, but neither validation of key risk prediction models nor their screening performance has been examined by race and ethnicity. Objective: To validate and recalibrate the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 (PLCOm2012) model-a well-established risk prediction model based on a predominantly White population-across races and ethnicities in the US and evaluate racial and ethnic disparities and screening performance through risk-based screening using PLCOm2012 vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based cohort design, the Multiethnic Cohort Study enrolled participants in 1993-1996, followed up through December 31, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2022, to May 19. 2023. A total of 105 261 adults with a smoking history were included. Exposures: The 6-year lung cancer risk was calculated through recalibrated PLCOm2012 (ie, PLCOm2012-Update) and screening eligibility based on a 6-year risk threshold greater than or equal to 1.3%, yielding similar eligibility as the USPSTF 2021 guidelines. Outcomes: Predictive accuracy, screening eligibility-incidence (E-I) ratio (ie, ratio of the number of eligible to incident cases), and screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen to detect 1 lung cancer). Results: Of 105 261 participants (60 011 [57.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), consisting of 19 258 (18.3%) African American, 27 227 (25.9%) Japanese American, 21 383 (20.3%) Latino, 8368 (7.9%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 29 025 (27.6%) White individuals, 1464 (1.4%) developed lung cancer within 6 years from enrollment. The PLCOm2012-Update showed good predictive accuracy across races and ethnicities (area under the curve, 0.72-0.82). The USPSTF 2021 criteria yielded a large disparity among African American individuals, whose E-I ratio was 53% lower vs White individuals (E-I ratio: 9.5 vs 20.3; P < .001). Under the risk-based screening (PLCOm2012-Update 6-year risk ≥1.3%), the disparity between African American and White individuals was substantially reduced (E-I ratio: 15.9 vs 18.4; P < .001), with minimal disparities observed in persons of other minoritized groups, including Japanese American, Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Risk-based screening yielded superior overall and race and ethnicity-specific performance to the USPSTF 2021 criteria, with higher overall sensitivity (67.2% vs 57.7%) and lower number needed to screen (26 vs 30) at similar specificity (76.6%). Conclusions: The findings of this cohort study suggest that risk-based lung cancer screening can reduce racial and ethnic disparities and improve screening performance across races and ethnicities vs the USPSTF 2021 criteria.

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).

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening by the 2021 USPSTF Guidelines Versus Risk-Based Criteria: The Multiethnic Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening guidelines to expand screening eligibility. We evaluated screening sensitivities and racial and ethnic disparities under the 2021 USPSTF criteria vs alternative risk-based criteria in a racially and ethnically diverse population. METHODS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, we evaluated the proportion of ever-smoking lung cancer cases eligible for screening (ie, screening sensitivity) under the 2021 USPSTF criteria and under risk-based criteria through the PLCOm2012 model (6-year risk ≥1.51%). We also calculated the screening disparity (ie, absolute sensitivity difference) for each of 4 racial or ethnic groups (African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian) vs White cases. RESULTS: Among 5900 lung cancer cases, 43.3% were screen eligible under the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Screening sensitivities varied by race and ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian (56.7%) and White (49.6%) cases attaining the highest sensitivities and Latino (37.3%), African American (38.4%), and Japanese American (40.0%) cases attaining the lowest. Latino cases had the greatest screening disparity vs White cases at 12.4%, followed by African American (11.2%) and Japanese American (9.6%) cases. Under risk-based screening, the overall screening sensitivity increased to 75.7%, and all racial and ethnic groups had increased sensitivities (54.5%-91.9%). Whereas the screening disparity decreased to 5.1% for African American cases, it increased to 28.6% for Latino cases and 12.8% for Japanese American cases. CONCLUSIONS: In the Multiethnic Cohort, racial and ethnic disparities decreased but persisted under the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines. Risk-based screening through PLCOm2012 may increase screening sensitivities and help to reduce disparities in some, but not all, racial and ethnic groups. Further optimization of risk-based screening strategies across diverse populations is needed.

Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data.

Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown. METHOD: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. RESULTS: Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers. CONCLUSION: Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data.

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.

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

Importance: In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear. Objective: To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US. Interventions: Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations. Results: This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges.

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population-based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk-factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk-based. In fact, the selection of high-risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk-stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk-based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk-based approaches can negatively influence the trade-off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large-scale implementation of targeted, risk-based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high-risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk-based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk-stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Objective: To inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years. Exposures: Screening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms). Results: Efficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases. Conclusions and Relevance: Microsimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.

Implementation of lung cancer screening: what are the main issues?

Two large-scale RCTs have shown computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening to be efficacious in reducing lung cancer mortality (8-24% in men, 26-59% in women). However, lung cancer screening implicitly means personalised and risk-based approaches. Health care systems' implementation of personalised screening and prevention is still sparse, and likely to be of variable quality, because of important remaining uncertainties, which have been incompletely addressed or not at all so far. Further optimisation of lung cancer screening programs is expected to reduce harms and maintain or enhance benefit for eligible European citizens, whilst significantly reducing health care costs. Some main uncertainties (e.g., Risk-based eligibility, Risk-based screening intervals, Volume CT screening, Smoking Cessation, Gender and Sex differences, Cost-Effectiveness) are discussed in this review. 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN (acronym for: Towards INdividually tailored INvitations, screening INtervals and INtegrated co-morbidity reducing strategies in lung cancer screening) is the first multi-centred implementation trial on volume CT lung cancer screening amongst 24,000 males and females, at high risk for developing lung cancer, across five European countries, started in January 2020. Through providing answers to the remaining questions with this trial, many EU citizens will swiftly benefit from this high-quality screening technology, others will face less harms than previously anticipated, and health care costs will be substantially reduced. Implementing a new cancer screening programme is a major task, with many stakeholders and many possible facilitators but also barriers and obstacle.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography in Singapore: A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited research is available on the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening programs in Asian countries. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Singapore's national mammography screening program, implemented in 2002, recommending annual screening between ages 40 and 49 and biennial screening between ages 50 and 69, and alternative screening scenarios taking into account important country-specific factors. METHODS: We used national data from Singapore in the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Fatal diameter (MISCAN-Fadia) model to simulate 302 screening scenarios for 10 million women born between 1910 and 1969. Screening scenarios varied by starting and ending age, screening interval, and attendance. Outcome measures included life-years gained (LYG), breast cancer deaths averted, false positives, overdiagnosis, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs (in 2002 Singapore dollars; S$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and effects were calculated and discounted with 3% using a health care provider's perspective. RESULTS: Singapore's current screening program at observed attendance levels required 54,158 mammograms per 100,000 women, yielded 1,054 LYG, and averted 57 breast cancer deaths. At attendance rates ≥50%, the current program was near the efficiency frontier. Most scenarios on the efficiency frontier started screening at age 40. The ICERs of the scenarios on the efficiency frontiers ranged between S$10,186 and S$56,306/QALY, which is considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of S$70,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Singapore's current screening program lies near the efficiency frontier, and starting screening at age 40 or 45 is cost-effective. Furthermore, enhancing screening attendance rates would increase benefits while maintaining cost-effectiveness. IMPACT: Screening all women at age 40 or 45 is cost-efficient in Singapore, and a policy change may be considered.

Correction: Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002277.].