The cost-effectiveness of the Manchester ‘lung health checks’, a community-based lung cancer low-dose CT screening pilot

Lung Cancer

Volumn 126, Issue , 2018, Pages 119-124

  Hinde, Sebastian ^a   Crilly, Tessa ^b   Balata, Haval ^c   Bartlett, Rachel ^b   Crilly, John ^b   Barber, Phil ^c,d   Threlfall, Anthony ^d   Tonge, Janet ^d,e   Booton, Richard ^c   Crosbie, Phil A ^c,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b Crystal Blue Consulting Ltd   (United States)

^c MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Macmillan Cancer Improvement Partnership   (United States)

^e Manchester Health and Care Commissioning   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Early detection; Economic evaluation; Low dose CT; Lung cancer; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PALLIATIVE THERAPY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOW ENERGY RADIATION; LUNG CANCER; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PILOT STUDY; POPULATION HEALTH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVENESS; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; COMMUNITY CARE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; ENGLAND; LUNG TUMOR; MASS SCREENING; PROCEDURES; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

AGED; COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PILOT PROJECTS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 85056152316     PISSN: 01695002     EISSN: 18728332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.10.029     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 365:5 (2011), 395–409.
2. Field, J.K., et al. UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening. Thorax 71:2 (2016), 161–170.
3. Horeweg, N., et al. Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers. Lancet Oncol. 15:12 (2014), 1342–1350.
4. Moyer, V., Screening for lung Cancer: u.s. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 160 (2013), 330–338.
5. Baldwin, D.R., et al. Low dose CT screening for lung cancer. BMJ, 359, 2017.
6. Oudkerk, M., et al. European position statement on lung cancer screening. Lancet Oncol. 18:12 (2017), e754–e766.
7. UK National Screening Committee, The UK NSC Recommendation on Lung Cancer Screening in Adult Cigarette Smokers. 2006, UK NSC, London.
8. CRUK. Lung Cancer Statistics. CRUK: London. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer#heading-One last accessed: August 6 2018.
9. McCartney, M., Why ask, if you ignore the answer?. BMJ, 357, 2017 (j1824).
10. Field, J.K., et al. CT screening for lung cancer: Is the evidence strong enough?. Lung Cancer 91 (2016), 29–35.
11. Crosbie, P.A., et al. Implementing lung cancer screening: baseline results from a community-based ‘Lung Health Check’ pilot in deprived areas of Manchester. Thorax, 2018.
12. Black, W.C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the national lung screening trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 371:19 (2014), 1793–1802.
13. Shmueli, A., et al. Cost-effectiveness of baseline low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: the Israeli experience. Value Health 16:6 (2013), 922–931.
14. Villanti, A.C., et al. A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions. PLoS One, 8(8), 2013, e71379.
15. McMahon, P.M., et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J. Thorac. Oncol. 6:11 (2011), 1841–1848.
16. Manser, R., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer 48:2 (2005), 171–185.
17. Mahadevia, P.J., et al. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. Jama 289:3 (2003), 313–322.
18. Marshall, D., et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort. Lung Cancer 32:3 (2001), 227–236.
19. Whynes, D.K., Could CT screening for lung cancer ever be cost effective in the United Kingdom?. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc., 6(1), 2008, 5.
20. NICE, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. 2013, NICE, London.
21. Department of Health and Social Care, NHS Reference Costs 2015 to 2016. 2016, Department of Health and Social Care, London.
22. CRUK, Saving Lives, Averting Costs: an Analysis of the Financial Implications of Achieving Earlier Diagnosis of Colorectal, Lung and Ovarian Cancer. 2014, CRUK, London.
23. ONS, Cancer Survival by Stage at Diagnosis for England (Experimental Statistics): Adults Diagnosed 2012, 2013 and 2014 and Followed up to 2015. 2016, ONS, Newport.
24. Biswas, M., Ades, A.E., Hamilton, W., Symptom lead times in lung and colorectal cancers: what are the benefits of symptom-based approaches to early diagnosis?. Br. J. Cancer 112:2 (2015), 271–277.
25. Kind, P., Hardman, G., Macran, S., UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. 1999.
26. Claxton, K., et al. Methods for the estimation of the national institute for health and care excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol. Assess. 19:14 (2015), 1–503 v-vi.
27. Briggs, A., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. 2006, Oxford University Press.