2016 reflections on the favorable cost-benefit of lung cancer screening

Annals of Translational Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 8, 2016, Pages

  Pyenson, Bruce ^a   Dieguez, Gabriela ^a  

^a MILLIMAN INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Actuarial; Cost benefit; Cost effectiveness; Health economics; Lung cancer screening

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CASE STUDY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOLD STANDARD; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICARE; METHODOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW;

EID: 84979261694     PISSN: 23055839     EISSN: 23055847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21037/atm.2016.04.02     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Villanti AC, Jiang Y, Abrams DB, et al. A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions. PLoS One 2013;8:e71379.
2. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, et al. Costeffectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1841-8.
3. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409.
4. Ma J, Ward EM, Smith R, et al. Annual number of lung cancer deaths potentially avertable by screening in the United States. Cancer 2013;119:1381-5.
5. Facts You Should Know. Available online: http://www.alsa.org/about-als/facts-you-should-know.html
6. The Cancer Drugs Fund. Available online: https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/cancer/cdf/
7. National Health Expenditure Data. Available online: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/index.html?redirect=/NationalHealthExpendData/. Accessed Jan 31, 2016
8. Parston G, McQueen J, Patel H, et al. The Science And Art Of Delivery: Accelerating The Diffusion Of Health Care Innovation. Health Aff(Millwood) 2015;34:2160-6.
9. Zeckhauser R, Shepard D. Where Now for Saving Lives? Law Contemp Probl 1976;40:5-45.
10. Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K, et al. The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health 2009;12 Suppl 1:S27-30.
11. Mauskopf JA. Why study pharmacoeconomics? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2001;1:1-3.
12. Compare Colleges & Universities. Available online: http://colleges.startclass.com/
13. Value in Health. Available online: http://www.ispor.org/
14. Johns G. Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda. J Organiz Behav 2010;31:519-42.
15. Occupational Employment Statistics Query System. Available online: http://data.bls.gov/oes/. Accessed Dec 27, 2015.
16. Gail MH, Benichou J. Encyclopedia of Epidemiologic Methods. P892. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?id=8qIMMbsO784C&pg=PA892&lpg=PA892&dq=history+of+actuarial+tables+Kaplan-Meier&source= bl&ots=Llb9UrTRt_&sig=YYVFpia6EWa3WliEv35zxAd dsk0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQuLQ6_7JAhVMdj4KHfkfCpUQ6AEIUjAJ#v=onepage& q=history%20of%20actuarial%20tables%20Kaplan-Meier&f=false
17. Actuarial Standard of Practice 23, Data Quality. Actuarial Standards Board. Available online: http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/standards-of-practice/
18. Bach P. Don't believe the hype about lung-cancer screenings. Slate Nov 15, 2010. Available online: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/11/ct_scam.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2
19. Pyenson B, Pickhardt PJ, Sawhney TG, et al. Medicare cost of colorectal cancer screening: CT colonography vs. optical colonoscopy. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:2966-76.
20. Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, et al. Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1-162.
21. Roth JA, Sullivan SD, Goulart BH, et al. Projected Clinical, Resource Use, and Fiscal Impacts of Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening in Medicare. J Oncol Pract 2015;11:267-72.
22. Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1793-802.
23. Pyenson BS, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz, DF, et al. Offering lung cancer screening to high-risk medicare beneficiaries saves lives and is cost-effective: an actuarial analysis. Am Health Drug Benefits 2014;7:272-82.
24. Curl PK, Kahn JG, Ordovas KG, et al. Understanding Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: An Explanation Using Three Different Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:344-7.
25. MQSA National Statistics. Available online: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm
26. Goldberg SW, Mulshine JL, Hagstrom D, et al. An actuarial approach to comparing early stage and late stage lung cancer mortality and survival. Popul Health Manag 2010;13:33-46.
27. International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1763-71.
28. Congressional Budget Office. High Cost Beneficiaries. May 2015. Available online: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/16487
29. Urato C, McCall N, Cromwell J, et al. Evaluation of the extended Medicare Care Management for High Cost Beneficiaries (CMHCB) demonstration: Health Buddy® program at Montefiore. Final report: Prepared for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD. October 2013. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Available online: http://www.rti.org/pubs/cmhcb-healthbuddymontefiore.pdf