Is chest X-ray screening for lung cancer in smokers cost-effective? Evidence from a population-based study in Italy

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Andrea Imperatori⁵  William Mantovani²  Massimo Paolucci⁴  Massimo Castiglioni⁵  Elisa Nardecchia⁵  Nicola Rotolo⁵  Lorenzo Dominioni⁵  Albino Poli¹  Paolo Pertile³ 

[1] Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy;Department of Prevention, Public Health Trust, Trento, Italy;Department of Economics, University of Verona, Via dell’Artigliere 19, Verona, 37129, Italy;Department of Radiology, Ospedale S. Antonio Abate, Gallarate, Italy;Center for Thoracic Surgery, University of Insubria, Ospedale di Circolo, Varese, Italy

关键词: Cost-utility;    Cost-effectiveness;    Chest X-ray screening;    Lung cancer;   

Others  :  1224809
DOI  :  10.1186/s12962-015-0041-0

 received in 2015-03-15, accepted in 2015-09-04,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

After implementation of the PREDICA annual chest X-ray (CXR) screening program in smokers in the general practice setting of Varese-Italy a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality (18 %) was observed. The objective of this study covering July 1997 through December 2006 was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Methods

We examined detailed information on lung cancer (LC) cases that occurred among smokers invited to be screened in the PREDICA study (Invitation-to-screening Group, n = 5815 subjects) to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from LC diagnosis until death. The control group consisted of 156 screening-eligible smokers from the same area, uninvited and unscreened, who developed LC and were treated by usual care. We calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) by comparing LC management in screening participants (n = 1244 subjects) and in the Invitation-to-screening group versus control group.

Results

The average number of QALYs since LC diagnosis was 1.7, 1.49 and 1.07, respectively, in screening participants, the invitation-to-screening group, and the control group. The average total cost (screening + management) per LC case was higher in screening participants (€17,516) and the Invitation-to-screening Group (€16,167) than in the control group (€15,503). Assuming a maximum willingness to pay of €30,000/QALY, we found that the intervention was cost-effective with high probability: 79 % for screening participation (screening participants vs. control group) and 95 % for invitation-to-screening (invitation-to-screening group vs. control group).

Conclusions

Based on the PREDICA study, annual CXR screening of high-risk smokers in a general practice setting has high probability of being cost-effective with a maximum willingness to pay of €30,000/QALY.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Pertile et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig.1.

Fig.2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(2):69-90.
• [2]Dela Cruz CS, Tanoue LT, Matthay RA. Lung Cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med. 2011; 32(4):605-644.
• [3]Burns DM. Primary prevention, smoking, and smoking cessation: implications for future trends in lung cancer prevention. Cancer. 2000; 89(11 Suppl):S2506-S2509.
• [4]Roth K, Nilsen TI, Hatlen E, Sorensen KS, Hole T, Haaverstad R. Predictors of long time survival after lung cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med. 2008; 8:22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Wright G, Manser RL, Byrnes G, Hart D, Campbell DA. Surgery for non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Thorax. 2006; 61(7):597-603.
• [6]Flehinger HJ, Melamed MR, Zaman MB, Heelan RT, Perchick W, Martini N. Resectability of lung cancer and survival in the New York Lung Cancer Detection Program. World J Surg. 1981; 5(5):681-687.
• [7]Mangone L, Minicozzi P, Vicentini M, Giacomin A, Caldarella A, Cirilli C, Falcini F, Giorgi Rossi P, Sant M. Key factors influencing lung cancer survival in northern Italy. Cancer Epidemiol. 2003; 37(3):226-232.
• [8]Henschke CI, Boffetta P, Gorlova O, Yip R, Delancey JO, Foy M. Assessment of lung-cancer mortality reduction from CT Screening. Lung Cancer. 2011; 71(3):328-332.
• [9]Dominioni L, Poli A, Mantovani W, Pisani S, Rotolo N, Paolucci M, Sessa F, Conti V, D’Ambrosio V, Paddeu A, Imperatori A. Assessment of lung cancer mortality reduction after chest X-ray screening in smokers: a population-based cohort study in Varese, Italy. Lung Cancer. 2013; 80(1):50-54.
• [10]Nakayama T, Baba T, Suzuki T, Sagawa M, Kaneko M. An evaluation of chest X-ray screening for lung cancer in Gunma prefecture, Japan: a population-based case-control study. Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38(10):1380-1387.
• [11]Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. New Engl J Med. 2011; 365(5):395-409.
• [12]Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E, Colditz GA, Church TR, Ettinger DS, Etzioni R, Flowers CR, Gazelle GS, Kelsey DK, LaMonte SJ, Michaelson JS, Oeffinger KC, Shih YC, Sullivan DC, Travis W, Walter L, Wolf AM, Brawley OW, Smith RA. American Cancer Society Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63(2):107-117.
• [13]Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, Chu CW. Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2001; 37(14):1759-1767.
• [14]Mahadevia PJ, Fleisher LA, Frick KD, Eng J, Goodman SN, Powe NR. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 2003; 289(3):313-322.
• [15]Goulart BH, Bensink ME, Mummy DG, Ramsey SD. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: costs, national expenditures, and cost-effectiveness. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012; 10(2):267-275.
• [16]Heuvers ME, Stricker BH, Aerts JG. Generalizing lung-cancer screening results. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(2):192-193.
• [17]Grosu HB, Eapen GA, Jimenez CA, Morice RC, Ost D. Lung cancer screening: making the transition from research to clinical practice. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2012; 18(4):295-303.
• [18]McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, Weinstein MC, Cipriano LE, Tramontano AC, Johnson BE, Weeks JC, Gazelle GS. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol. 2011; 6(11):1841-1848.
• [19]Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Miettinen OS, Libby DM, Pasmantier MW, Koizumi J, Altorki NK, Smith JP. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet. 1999; 354(9173):99-105.
• [20]Gavelli G, Giampalma E. Sensitivity and specificity of chest X-ray screening for lung cancer: review article. Cancer. 2000; 89(11 Suppl):S2453-S2456.
• [21]Strauss GM, Dominioni L. Chest X-ray screening for lung cancer: overdiagnosis, endpoints, and randomized population trials. J Surg Oncol. 2013; 108(5):294-300.
• [22]Gossner J. Lung cancer screening-don’t forget the chest radio graph. World J Radiol. 2014; 6(4):116-118.
• [23]Caro JJ, Klittich WS, Strauss G. Could chest X-ray screening for lung cancer be cost-effective? Cancer. 2000; 89(11 Suppl):S2502-S2505.
• [24]Strauss GM. Screening for lung cancer: An evidence-based synthesis. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1999; 8(4):747-774.
• [25]Dominioni L, Rotolo N, Poli A, Castiglioni M, Mangini M, Spagnoletti M, Paolucci M, Paddeu A, Mantovani W, Zanini A, Imperatori A. Cost of a population-based programme of chest X-ray screening for lung cancer. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2013; 79(2):67-72.
• [26]Dominioni L, Rotolo N, Mantovani W, Poli A, Pisani S, Conti V, Paolucci M, Sessa F, Paddeu A, D’Ambrosio V, Imperatori A. A population-based cohort study of chest X-ray screening in smokers: lung cancer detection findings and follow-up. BMC Cancer. 2012; 17:12-18.
• [27]Dominioni L, Rotolo N, Poli A, Paolucci M, Sessa F, D’Ambrosio V, Paddeu A, Mantovani W, Imperatori A. Self-selection effects in smokers attending lung cancer screening. A 9.5-year population-based cohort study in Varese, Italy. J Thorac Oncol. 2010; 5(4):428-435.
• [28]Imperatori A, Harrison RN, Leitch DN, Rovera F, Lepore G, Dionigi G, Sutton P, Dominioni L. Lung cancer in Teesside (UK) and Varese (Italy): a comparison of management and survival. Thorax. 2006; 61(3):232-239.
• [29]Azienda Sanitaria Locale della Provincia di Varese. Varese Province Epidemiology Observatory. Available at: http://www.asl.varese.it/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
• [30]Mountain CF. Revisions in the international system for staging lung cancer. Chest. 1997; 111(6):1710-1717.
• [31]Manser R, Dalton A, Carter R, Byrnes G, Elwood M, Campbell DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer. 2005; 48(2):171-185.
• [32]Sturza J. A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30(6):685-693.
• [33]Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, Bell CM, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(18):3302-3317.
• [34]Black C, Bagust A, Boland A, Walker S, McLeod C, De Verteuil R, Ayres J, Bain L, Thomas S, Godden D, Waugh N. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2006; 10(3):1-90.
• [35]Marshall HM, Bowman RV, Yang IA, Fong KM, Berg CD. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a review of current status. J Thorac Dis. 2013; 5 Suppl 5:S524-S539.
• [36]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2008.
• [37]Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). Available at: http://rivaluta.istat.it. Accessed November 25, 2013.
• [38]Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18 Suppl2:S68-S80.
• [39]Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Ann Rev Public Health. 2002; 23(1):377-401.
• [40]Jaklitsch MT, Jacobson FL, Austin JHM, Field JK, Jett JR, Keshavjee S, MacMahon H, Mulshine JL, Munden RF, Salgia R, Strauss GM, Swanson SJ, Travis WD, Surgarbaker DJ. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 144(1):33-38.
• [41]Patz EF, Pinsky P, Gatsonis C, Sicks JD, Kramer BS, Tammemagi MC, Chiles C, Black WC, Aberle DR, Overdiagnosis Manuscript Writing Team NLST. Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(2):269-274.
• [42]Kussman RS. The overdiagnosis theory in lung cancer screening: does it make any sense? J Surg Oncol. 2013; 109(3):177-178.