Cost-Effectiveness of an Organized Lung Cancer Screening Program for Asbestos-Exposed Subjects

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Lung cancer screening experiments in smokers are underway in Europe, and data in populations with other risk factors for lung cancer, such as asbestos exposure, are expected. Our original article yielded a cost-effectiveness analysis of a lung cancer screening program in a population exposed to asbestos, based on the data from National Lung Cancer Screening trial and a French asbestos-exposed cohort (ARDCO cohort). Individual data from 14,218 subjects in the ARDCO cohort, followed for 20 years (2002–2022), have allowed several screening models to be established according to exposure level, smoking status and presence of radiological signs of asbestos exposure. For the whole cohort, an annual screening programme is not cost-effective, while screening every 2 years for smokers with high asbestos-exposure and subjects with asbestosis is cost-effective. This analysis has never been reported in the literature and could help in the establishment of inclusion criteria for future experiments in this population. ABSTRACT: Background: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and NELSON study opened the debate on the relevance of lung cancer (LC) screening in subjects exposed to occupational respiratory carcinogens. This analysis reported the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of an organized LC screening program for an asbestos-exposed population. Methods: Using Markov modelization, individuals with asbestos exposure were either monitored without intervention or annual low-dose thoracic computed-tomography (LDTCT) scan LC screening. LC incidence came from a prospective observational cohort of subjects with occupational asbestos exposure. The intervention parameters were those of the NLST study. Utilities and LC-management costs came from published reports. A sensitivity analysis evaluated different screening strategies. Results: The respective quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain, supplementary costs and ICER [95% confidence interval] were: 0.040 [0.010–0.065] QALY, 6900 [3700–11,800] € and 170,000 [75,000–645,000] €/QALY for all asbestos-exposed subjects; and 0.144 [0.071–0.216] QALY, 13,000 [5700–26,800] € and 90,000 [35,000–276,000] €/QALY for smokers with high exposure. When screening was based on biennial LDTCT scans, the ICER was 45,000 [95% CI: 15,000–116,000] €/QALY. Conclusions: Compared to the usual ICER thresholds, biennial LDTCT scan LC screening for smokers with high occupational exposure to asbestos is acceptable and preferable to annual scans.