Cargando…

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Griffin, Edward, Hyde, Chris, Long, Linda, Varley-Campbell, Jo, Coelho, Helen, Robinson, Sophie, Snowsill, Tristan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y
_version_ 1783617705418424320
author Griffin, Edward
Hyde, Chris
Long, Linda
Varley-Campbell, Jo
Coelho, Helen
Robinson, Sophie
Snowsill, Tristan
author_facet Griffin, Edward
Hyde, Chris
Long, Linda
Varley-Campbell, Jo
Coelho, Helen
Robinson, Sophie
Snowsill, Tristan
author_sort Griffin, Edward
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes. METHODS: An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained). RESULTS: LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55–75 or 60–75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold. LIMITATIONS: LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7709236
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77092362020-12-02 Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model Griffin, Edward Hyde, Chris Long, Linda Varley-Campbell, Jo Coelho, Helen Robinson, Sophie Snowsill, Tristan Diagn Progn Res Research BACKGROUND: A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes. METHODS: An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained). RESULTS: LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55–75 or 60–75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold. LIMITATIONS: LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y. BioMed Central 2020-12-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7709236/ /pubmed/33292800 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Griffin, Edward
Hyde, Chris
Long, Linda
Varley-Campbell, Jo
Coelho, Helen
Robinson, Sophie
Snowsill, Tristan
Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model
title Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model
title_full Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model
title_fullStr Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model
title_full_unstemmed Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model
title_short Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model
title_sort lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the uk using a newly developed natural history-based economic model
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7709236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y
work_keys_str_mv AT griffinedward lungcancerscreeningbylowdosecomputedtomographyacosteffectivenessanalysisofalternativeprogrammesintheukusinganewlydevelopednaturalhistorybasedeconomicmodel
AT hydechris lungcancerscreeningbylowdosecomputedtomographyacosteffectivenessanalysisofalternativeprogrammesintheukusinganewlydevelopednaturalhistorybasedeconomicmodel
AT longlinda lungcancerscreeningbylowdosecomputedtomographyacosteffectivenessanalysisofalternativeprogrammesintheukusinganewlydevelopednaturalhistorybasedeconomicmodel
AT varleycampbelljo lungcancerscreeningbylowdosecomputedtomographyacosteffectivenessanalysisofalternativeprogrammesintheukusinganewlydevelopednaturalhistorybasedeconomicmodel
AT coelhohelen lungcancerscreeningbylowdosecomputedtomographyacosteffectivenessanalysisofalternativeprogrammesintheukusinganewlydevelopednaturalhistorybasedeconomicmodel
AT robinsonsophie lungcancerscreeningbylowdosecomputedtomographyacosteffectivenessanalysisofalternativeprogrammesintheukusinganewlydevelopednaturalhistorybasedeconomicmodel
AT snowsilltristan lungcancerscreeningbylowdosecomputedtomographyacosteffectivenessanalysisofalternativeprogrammesintheukusinganewlydevelopednaturalhistorybasedeconomicmodel