Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMC Health Services Research

Fatemeh Pournaghi-Azar¹  Parvin Ebrahimi²  Alireza Mazdaki³  Aziz Rezapour³  Negar Yousefzadeh³  Farbod Ebadifard Azar⁴  Saber Azami-Aghdash⁵ 

[1] Dental and Periodental Research Centre, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences;Department of Health service Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences & Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences;Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences;Health Promotion Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences;Road Traffic Injury Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences;

关键词: Cost-effectiveness;    Lung cancer;    Screening;    Treatment;    Systematic review;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-017-2374-1

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Due to extensive literature in the field of lung cancer and their heterogeneous results, the aim of this study was to systematically review of systematic reviews studies which reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various lung cancer screening and treatment methods. Methods In this systematic review of systematic reviews study, required data were collected searching the following key words which selected from Mesh: “lung cancer”, “lung oncology”, “lung Carcinoma”, “lung neoplasm”, “lung tumors”, “cost- effectiveness”, “systematic review” and “Meta-analysis”. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library electronic databases, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers (RA and A-AS) evaluated the articles according to the checklist of “assessment of multiple systematic reviews” (AMSTAR) tool. Results Overall, information of 110 papers was discussed in eight systematic reviews. Authors focused on cost-effectiveness of lung cancer treatments in five systematic reviews. Targeted therapy options (bevacizumab, Erlotinib and Crizotinib) show an acceptable cost-effectiveness. Results of three studies failed to show cost-effectiveness of screening methods. None of the studies had used the meta-analysis method. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool and Drummond checklist were mostly used in assessing the quality of articles. Most perspective was related to the Payer (64 times) and the lowest was related to Social (11times). Most cases referred to Incremental analysis (82%) and also the lowest point of referral was related to Discounting (in 49% of the cases). The average quality score of included studies was calculated 9.2% from 11. Conclusions Targeted therapy can be an option for the treatment of lung cancer. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) in lung cancer screening is recommended. The perspective of the community should be more taken into consideration in studies of cost-effectiveness. Paying more attention to the topic of Discounting will be necessary in the studies.

【 授权许可】

Unknown