Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Scenarios in a Population-Based Setting: A Microsimulation Modeling Analysis in Ontario, Canada

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  ten Haaf, Kevin ^a   Tammemägi, Martin C ^b   Bondy, Susan J ^c,d   van der Aalst, Carlijn M ^a   Gu, Sumei ^d   McGregor, S Elizabeth ^e   Nicholas, Garth ^f   de Koning, Harry J ^a   Paszat, Lawrence F ^c,d  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b BROCK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^e ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES   (Canada)

^f OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANADA; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSTATE CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VERY ELDERLY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICE; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MORTALITY; ONTARIO; THEORETICAL MODEL; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL OVERUSE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MORTALITY; ONTARIO; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 85014471954     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002225     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(5):395–409. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC 21714641 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa110287321714641
2. Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, Sicks JD, Keeler EB, Aberle DR, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of CT Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;371(19):1793–802. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa131254725372087
3. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC, Updating Cost-Effectiveness—The Curious Resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY Threshold. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;371(9):796–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp140515825162885
4. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, Weinstein MC, Cipriano LE, Tramontano AC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2011;6(11):1841–8. Epub 2011/09/06. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3202298. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31822e59b321892105
5. Pyenson BS, Sander MS, Jiang Y, Kahn H, Mulshine JL, An Actuarial Analysis Shows That Offering Lung Cancer Screening As An Insurance Benefit Would Save Lives At Relatively Low Cost. Health Affairs. 2012;31(4):770–9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.081422492894
6. Villanti AC, Jiang Y, Abrams DB, Pyenson BS, A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(8):e71379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.007137923940744
7. 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):313–22. 12525232
8. Goffin JR, Flanagan WM, Miller AB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in Canada. JAMA Oncology. 2015;1(6):807–13. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.247226226181
9. Raymakers AJN, Mayo J, Lam S, FitzGerald JM, Whitehurst DGT, Lynd LD, Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Strategies Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2016:1–10.
10. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al. Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(10):738–47. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-0001019920274
11. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Wilschut J, van Ballegooijen M, Kuntz KM, Evaluating Test Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;149(9):659–69. 18838717
12. Moyer VA, Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014;160(5):330–8. doi: 10.7326/M13-277124378917
13. de Koning HJ, Meza R, Plevritis SK, ten Haaf K, Munshi VN, Jeon J, et al. Benefits and Harms of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Strategies: A Comparative Modeling Study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014;160(5):311–20. doi: 10.7326/M13-231624379002
14. Field JK, Oudkerk M, Pedersen JH, Duffy SW, Prospects for population screening and diagnosis of lung cancer. The Lancet. 2013;382(9893):732–41.
15. Corsi D, Boyle M, Lear S, Chow C, Teo K, Subramanian SV, Trends in smoking in Canada from 1950 to 2011: progression of the tobacco epidemic according to socioeconomic status and geography. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25(1):45–57. doi: 10.1007/s10552-013-0307-924158778
16. Sox HC, Better Evidence about Screening for Lung Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(5):455–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe110377621714644
17. O’Mahony JF, Normand C, HIQA's CEA of Breast Screening: Pragmatic Policy Recommendations are Welcome, but ACERs Reported as ICERs are Not. Value in Health. 2015;18(8):941–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.00926686777
18. O’Mahony JF, Naber SK, Normand C, Sharp L, O’Leary JJ, de Kok IMCM, Beware of Kinked Frontiers: A Systematic Review of the Choice of Comparator Strategies in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cervical Screening. Value in Health. 2015;18(8):1138–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.293926686801
19. de Gelder R, Bulliard J- L, de Wolf C, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, Schopper D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland. European Journal of Cancer. 2009;45(1):127–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.01519038540
20. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG, Boer R, Wilschut J, Habbema JDF, At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach. International Journal of Cancer. 2009;124(5):1161–8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2402519048626
21. Heijnsdijk EAM, de Carvalho TM, Auvinen A, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening: A Simulation Study Based on ERSPC Data. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2015;107(1).
22. de Kok IM, van Rosmalen J, Dillner J, Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Iftner T, et al. Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model. BMJ. 2012;344.
23. Meza R, ten Haaf K, Kong CY, Erdogan A, Black WC, Tammemagi MC, et al. Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials. Cancer. 2014;120(11):1713–24. doi: 10.1002/cncr.2862324577803
24. ten Haaf K, van Rosmalen J, de Koning HJ, Lung Cancer Detectability by Test, Histology, Stage, and Gender: Estimates from the NLST and the PLCO Trials. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2015;24(1):154–61.
25. ten Haaf K, de Koning HJ, Overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening: why modelling is essential. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2015;69(11):1035–9. doi: 10.1136/jech-2014-20407926071497
26. Ontario Ministry of Finance, Ontario Population Projections Update, 2011–2036. Spring 2012.
27. Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table 051–0001., http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=0510001&&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=1&tabMode=dataTable&csid=, Accessed on 22-01-2016.
28. Statistics Canada 2011. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), Cycle 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 2008, 2009, 2010 Annual Component surveys [Microdata]. Ottawa Ontario: Statistics Canada Health Statistics Division [producer and distributor]: Ottawa Ontario: Data Liberation Initiative [distributor].
29. Statistics Canada 2012. National Population Health Survey (NPHS), Cycle 1–9: Household Component—Longitudinal [Canada] [Microdata]. Ottawa Ontario: Statistics Canada Health Statistics Division [producer and distributor]: Ottawa Ontario: Data Liberation Initiative [distributor].
30. Statistics Canada. 1986. General Social Survey, Cycle 1, 1985 [Canada]: Health and Social Support [public use microdata file]. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada [producer and distributor].
31. Statistics Canada. Survey of Smoking Habits, 1971–1986 [Canada] [Public-use microdata file(s)]. Ottawa, Ontario: Special Surveys Division, Statistics Canada [producer and distributor]. Ottawa, Ontario: Data Liberation Initiative [distributor].
32. Canadian Human Mortality Database. Department of Demography, Université de Montréal (Canada). www.demo.umontreal.ca/chmd/ (data downloaded on 14-03-2014). [Internet].
33. https://www.cancercare.on.ca/siteinfo/contact/.
34. van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Mali WPTM, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, et al. Risk-based selection from the general population in a screening trial: Selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung cancer multi-slice CT screening trial (NELSON). International Journal of Cancer. 2007;120(4):868–74. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2213417131307
35. van de Wiel JCM, Wang Y, Xu DM, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, van der Jagt EJ, van Klaveren RJ, et al. Neglectable benefit of searching for incidental findings in the Dutch—Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) using low-dose multidetector CT. European Radiology. 2007;17(6):1474–82. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0532-717206426
36. Yabroff KR, Mariotto AB, Feuer E, Brown ML, Projections of the costs associated with colorectal cancer care in the United States, 2000–2020. Health Economics. 2008;17(8):947–59. doi: 10.1002/hec.130717910108
37. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX, How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1992;146(4):473–81. 1306034
38. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB, REcommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8. 8849754
39. Telford JJ, Levy AR, Sambrook JC, Zou D, Enns RA, The cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2010;182(12):1307–13. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.09084520624866
40. http://www.exchange-rates.org/Rate/CAD/USD/5-1-2015, accessed on 01-09-2016.
41. Kovalchik SA, Tammemagi M, Berg CD, Caporaso NE, Riley TL, Korch M, et al. Targeting of Low-Dose CT Screening According to the Risk of Lung-Cancer Death. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;369(3):245–54. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa130185123863051
42. Raji OY, Duffy SW, Agbaje OF, Baker SG, Christiani DC, Cassidy A, et al. Predictive Accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project Risk Model for Stratifying Patients for Computed Tomography Screening for Lung CancerA Case–Control and Cohort Validation Study. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012;157(4):242–50. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-4-201208210-0000422910935
43. Tammemägi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, Church TR, Caporaso N, Kvale PA, et al. Selection Criteria for Lung-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(8):728–36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa121177623425165
44. Duffy SW, Field JK, Allgood PC, Seigneurin A, Translation of research results to simple estimates of the likely effect of a lung cancer screening programme in the United Kingdom. 2014;110(7):1834–40. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.6324525696
45. Groome PA, Bolejack V, Crowley JJ, Kennedy C, Krasnik M, Sobin LH, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: Validation of the Proposals for Revision of the T, N, and M Descriptors and Consequent Stage Groupings in the Forthcoming (Seventh) Edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2(8):694–705. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31812d05d517762335
46. van den Bergh KAM, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJJM, Scholten ET, van Klaveren RJ, de Koning HJ, Long-term effects of lung cancer computed tomography screening on health-related quality of life: the NELSON trial. European Respiratory Journal. 2011;38(1):154–61. doi: 10.1183/09031936.0012341021148229
47. van den Bergh KAM, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJJM, Th Scholten E, Prokop M, de Koning HJ, et al. Short-term health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON). British Journal of Cancer. 2009;102(1):27–34. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.660545919935789
48. Sturza J, A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer. Medical Decision Making. 2010;30(6):685–93. doi: 10.1177/0272989X1036900420448248
49. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefits and harms of ct screening for lung cancer: A systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2418–29. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.552122610500
50. Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Black W, Munden R, Nath H, Aberle D, et al. Performance of Lung-RADS in the National Lung Screening Trial: A Retrospective Assessment. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015;162(7):485–91. doi: 10.7326/M14-208625664444
51. Horeweg N, van Rosmalen J, Heuvelmans MA, van der Aalst CM, Vliegenthart R, Scholten ET, et al. Lung cancer probability in patients with CT-detected pulmonary nodules: a prespecified analysis of data from the NELSON trial of low-dose CT screening. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(12):1332–41. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70389-425282285
52. http://www.exchange-rates.org/Rate/GBP/USD/5-1-2015, accessed on 01-09-2016.
53. National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceDeveloping NICE Guidelines: The Manual [Internet]. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2015Jul22. Process and Methods Guides No. 20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310375/.
54. Patz EF, JrGreco E, Gatsonis C, Pinsky P, Kramer BS, Aberle DR, Lung cancer incidence and mortality in National Lung Screening Trial participants who underwent low-dose CT prevalence screening: a retrospective cohort analysis of a randomised, multicentre, diagnostic screening trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2016;17(5):590–9. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00621-X27009070
55. Cancer Care Ontario. Cancer Fact: Lung cancer accounts for largest proportion of premature Ontario cancer deaths. Available from: http://www.cancercare.on.ca/cancerfacts.
56. Cancer Care Ontario. Cancer statistics 2012. Available from: http://www.cancercare.ca/ocs/csurv/stats/ontario/.