Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: A systematic review and economic evaluation

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 22, Issue 69, 2018, Pages 1-276

  Snowsill, Tristan ^a   Yang, Huiqin ^a   Griffin, Ed ^a   Long, Linda ^a   Varley Campbell, Jo ^a   Coelho, Helen ^a   Robinson, Sophie ^a   Hyde, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASBESTOS;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; BRONCHOSCOPY; CALIBRATION; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER THERAPY; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONSULTATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH EQUITY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOW DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; LUNG BIOPSY; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL HISTORY; META ANALYSIS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; PASSIVE SMOKING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURVIVAL RATE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS; USUAL CARE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; LUNG TUMOR; MASS SCREENING; TREATMENT OUTCOME; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85058907608     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta22690     Document Type: Review

References (220)

1. Office for National Statistics. Cancer Registration Statistics, England: 2014. Newport:Office for National Statistics; 2016. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancerregistrationstatisticsengland/2014 (accessed 7 December 2016).
2. Chyou PH, Nomura AM, Stemmermann GN. A prospective study of the attributable risk of cancer due to cigarette smoking. Am J Public Health 1992;82:37-40. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.82.1.37
3. Chang CM, Corey CG, Rostron BL, Apelberg BJ. Systematic review of cigar smoking and all cause and smoking related mortality. BMC Public Health 2015;15:390. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1617-5
4. Akl EA, Gaddam S, Gunukula SK, Honeine R, Jaoude PA, Irani J. The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:834-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq002
5. Pinsky PF, Zhu CS, Kramer BS. Lung cancer risk by years since quitting in 30+ pack year smokers. J Med Screen 2015;22:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141315579119
6. Lubin JH, Caporaso NE. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer: modeling total exposure and intensity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:517-23. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0863
7. Office for National Statistics. Adult Smoking Habits in Great Britain: 1974- 2014. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2016. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/drugusealcoholandsmoking/datasets/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain (accessed 7 December 2016).
8. Office for National Statistics. Adult Smoking Habits in the UK: 2015. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2017. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2015 (accessed May 2017).
9. Eurostat. European Health Interview Survey. Smoking of Tobacco Products by Sex, Age and Educational Attainment Level. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do? dataset=hlth_ehis_sk1e&lang=en (accessed 29 June 2018).
10. Department of Health and Social Care. 2010 to 2015 Government Policy: Smoking. London: Department of Health and Social Care. www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015- government-policy-smoking/2010-to-2015-government-policy-smoking (accessed 23 December 2016).
11. NHS. Smokefree. www.nhs.uk/smokefree (accessed 23 December 2016).
12. Public Health England. Stoptober. London: Public Health England; 2016. https://campaign resources.phe.gov.uk/resources/campaigns/6-stoptober/overview (accessed 23 December 2016).
13. Perraudin F. MPs pass legislation to introduce standardised cigarette packaging. The Guardian, 11 March 2015. www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/11/mps-pass-legislation-introducestandardised- cigarette-packaging (accessed 16 December 2016).
14. Great Britain. Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. London: The Stationery Office; 2002.
15. Taylor R, Najafi F, Dobson A. Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:1048-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym158
16. Cancer Research UK. Risk and Causes. London: Cancer Research UK; 2017. www.cancer researchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/risks-causes (accessed May 2017).
17. Dela Cruz CS, Tanoue LT, Matthay RA. Lung cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med 2011;32:605-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2011.09.001
18. Royal College of Physicians. National Lung Cancer Audit Annual Report 2016 (for the Audit Period 2015). London: Royal College of Physicians; 2017.
19. Rekhtman N. Neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: an update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:1628-38. https://doi.org/10.1043/2009-0583-RAR.1
20. Bertino EM, Confer PD, Colonna JE, Ross P, Otterson GA. Pulmonary neuroendocrine/carcinoid tumors: a review article. Cancer 2009;115:4434-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24498
21. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG, Yatabe Y, Austin JHM, Beasley MB, et al. The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors: impact of genetic, clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:1243-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000630
22. Cancer Research UK. Stage and Grade of Lung Cancer. London: Cancer Research UK; 2017. www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/stages-types-grades/stages-grades (accessed May 2017).
23. Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 7th edn. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 2009.
24. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, Giroux DJ, Groome PA, Rami-Porta R, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol 2007;2:706-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e31812f3c1a
25. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, editors. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 8th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016.
26. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Müller-Hermelink HK, Harris CC. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004.
27. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to Diagnosis by Stage 2012-2013 Workbook. London: National Cancer Intelligence Network; 2015. www.ncin.org.uk/view?rid=3071 (accessed 16 January 2017).
28. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Suspected Cancer: Recognition and Referral. NICE Guideline NG 12. London: NICE; 2015. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12 (accessed 23 December 2016).
29. Hamilton W, Peters TJ, Round A, Sharp D. What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study. Thorax 2005;60:1059-65. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2005.045880
30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Lung Cancer: Diagnosis and Management. Clinical Guideline CG 121. London. NICE; 2011. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg121/(accessed 23 December 2016).
31. Cancer Research UK. Lung Cancer Survival Statistics. London: Cancer Research UK; 2017. www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer/survival (accessed May 2017).
32. Cancer Research UK. Survival. London: Cancer Research UK; 2017. http://about-cancer. cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/survival (accessed May 2017).
33. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to Diagnosis 2006-2013 Workbook. London: National Cancer Intelligence Network; 2015. www.ncin.org.uk/view?rid=3053 (accessed 16 January 2017).
34. Office for National Statistics. Geographic Patterns of Cancer Survival in England: Adults Diagnosed 2003 to 2010 and Followed Up to 2015. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2017. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/geographicpatternsofcancersurvivalinengland/adultsdiagnosed2003to2010andfollowedup to2015 (accessed May 2017).
35. World Cancer Research Fund International. Lung Cancer Statistics. London: World Cancer Research Fund International; 2017. www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/lung-cancer-statistics (accessed May 2017).
36. Eurostat. Cancer Statistics - Specific Cancers. 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Cancer_statistics_-_specific_cancers#Lung_cancer (accessed May 2017).
37. Office for National Statistics. Deaths Registered in England and Wales (Series DR): 2014. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2015. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredinenglandandwalesseriesdr/2015-11-09 (accessed 18 May 2018).
38. Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland. Cancer Mortality in Scotland (2014): Cancer Mortality by Year - Lung and Mesothelioma. Edinburgh: Information Services Division Scotland; 2015. www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Cancer/Publications/data-tables.asp (accessed 18 May 2018).
39. Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. Cancer Mortality Statistics for Northern Ireland: 1993-2016 - Lung Cancer (C33-C34). Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2018. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast. www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/nicr/CancerInformation/official-statistics/BySite/LungTracheaBronchus/(accessed 18 May 2018).
40. Office for National Statistics. Population Estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: Mid- 2014. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2016. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland (accessed 18 May 2018).
41. National Cancer Intelligence Network. One, Five and Ten Year Cancer Prevalence by Cancer Network, UK, 2006. London: National Cancer Intelligence Network; 2010. www.ncin.org.uk/view?rid=76 (accessed 12 December 2016).
42. Polanski J, Jankowska-Polanska B, Rosinczuk J, Chabowski M, Szymanska-Chabowska A. Quality of life of patients with lung cancer. Oncotargets and Therapy 2016;9:1023-8. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S100685
43. Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, Sullivan R. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:1165-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70442-X
44. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
45. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:365-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
46. Bergman B, Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Kaasa S, Sullivan M. The EORTC QLQ-LC13: a modular supplement to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A: 635-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8049(94)90535-5
47. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, Potanovich LM. Quality of life assessment in individuals with lung cancer: testing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Eur J Cancer 1993;29A(Suppl. 1):51-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(05)80262-X
48. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:570-9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570
49. Cella DF, Bonomi AE, Lloyd SR, Tulsky DS, Kaplan E, Bonomi P. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. Lung Cancer 1995;12:199-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5002(95)00450-F
50. Callister ME, Baldwin DR, Akram AR, Barnard S, Cane P, Draffan J, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 2015;70(Suppl. 2):1-54. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207168
51. Lim E, Baldwin D, Beckles M, Duffy J, Entwisle J, Faivre-Finn C, et al. Guidelines on the radical management of patients with lung cancer. Thorax 2010;65(Suppl. 3):2-27. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.145938
52. Manser R, Lethaby A, Irving LB, Stone C, Byrnes G, Abramson MJ, et al. Screening for lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;6:CD001991. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. CD001991.pub3
53. Public Health England. Guidance, Ionising Radiation: Dose Comparisons. London: Public Health England; 2011. www.gov.uk/government/publications/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons (accessed 24 May 2017).
54. Black C, Bagust A, Boland A, Walker S, McLeod C, De Verteuil R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2006;10(3). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta10030
55. Field JK, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, Brain KE, Devaraj A, Eisen T, et al. The UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of low-dose computed tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(40). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20400
56. Horeweg N, Scholten ET, de Jong PA, van der Aalst CM, Weenink C, Lammers JW, et al. Detection of lung cancer through low-dose CT screening (NELSON): a prespecified analysis of screening test performance and interval cancers. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:1342-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70387-0
57. Horeweg N, van der Aalst CM, Vliegenthart R, Zhao Y, Xie X, Scholten ET, et al. Volumetric computed tomography screening for lung cancer: three rounds of the NELSON trial. Eur Respir J 2013;42:1659-67. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00197712
58. McCartney M. Margaret McCartney: Why ask, if you ignore the answer? BMJ 2017;357:j1824. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1824
59. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
60. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
61. Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, Brambilla G, Chiesa G, Ceresoli G, et al. A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography: three-year results from the DANTE trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;180:445-53. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200901-0076OC
62. Blanchon T, Bréchot JM, Grenier PA, Ferretti GR, Lemarié E, Milleron B, et al. Baseline results of the Depiscan study: a French randomized pilot trial of lung cancer screening comparing low dose CT scan (LDCT) and chest X-ray (CXR). Lung Cancer 2007;58:50-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.05.009
63. Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, Bach K, Hansen H, Toennesen P, et al. The Danish randomized lung cancer CT screening trial - overall design and results of the prevalence round. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:608-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a0d98f
64. Garg K, Keith RL, Byers T, Kelly K, Kerzner AL, Lynch DA, Miller YE. Randomized controlled trial with low-dose spiral CT for lung cancer screening: feasibility study and preliminary results. Radiology 2002;225:506-10. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2252011851
65. Lopes Pegna A, Picozzi G, Falaschi F, Carrozzi L, Falchini M, Carozzi FM, et al. Four-year results of low-dose CT screening and nodule management in the ITALUNG trial. J Thorac Oncol 2013;8:866-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e31828f68d6
66. Gohagan JK, Marcus PM, Fagerstrom RM, Pinsky PF, Kramer BS, Prorok PC, et al. Final results of the Lung Screening Study, a randomized feasibility study of spiral CT versus chest X-ray screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2005;47:9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.06.007
67. Spiro SG, Hackshaw A, LungSEARCH Collaborative Group. Research in progress - LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of surveillance for the early detection of lung cancer in a high-risk group. Thorax 2016;71:91-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207433
68. Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML, Eigentopf A, Heussel CP, Dienemann H, et al. Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: study design and results of the first screening round. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012;138:1475-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432- 012-1228-9
69. Pastorino U, Rossi M, Rosato V, Marchianò A, Sverzellati N, Morosi C, et al. Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur J Cancer Prev 2012;21:308-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328351e1b6
70. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
71. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Church TR, Black WC, Aberle DR, Berg CD, Clingan KL, et al. Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1980-91. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209120
72. Lopes Pegna A, Picozzi G, Mascalchi M, Maria Carozzi F, Carrozzi L, Comin C, et al. Design, recruitment and baseline results of the ITALUNG trial for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Lung Cancer 2009;64:34-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.07.003
73. Ashraf H, Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Thomsen LH, Døssing M, Tønnesen P. Smoking habits in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial with low-dose CT: final results after a 5-year screening programme. Thorax 2014;69:574-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-203849
74. Gareen IF, Duan F, Greco EM, Snyder BS, Boiselle PM, Park ER, et al. Impact of lung cancer screening results on participant health-related quality of life and state anxiety in the National Lung Screening Trial. Cancer 2014;120:3401-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28833
75. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Clapp JD, Clingan KL, Gareen IF, et al. Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1771-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq434
76. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928
77. National Center for Health Statistics. National Death Index. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. www.cdc.gov/nchs/ndi/index.htm (accessed 14 June 2018).
78. Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, Passera E, Chiarenza M, Chiesa G, et al. Long-term follow-up results of the DANTE trial, a randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;191:1166-75. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm. 201408-1475OC
79. Wille MM, Dirksen A, Ashraf H, Saghir Z, Bach KS, Brodersen J, et al. Results of the randomized Danish lung cancer screening trial with focus on high-risk profiling. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;193:542-51. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-1040OC
80. Brain K, Carter B, Lifford KJ, Burke O, Devaraj A, Baldwin DR, et al. Impact of low-dose CT screening on smoking cessation among high-risk participants in the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial. Thorax 2017;72:912-18. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209690
81. van der Aalst CM, van den Bergh KA, Willemsen MC, de Koning HJ, van Klaveren RJ. Lung cancer screening and smoking abstinence: 2 year follow-up data from the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial. Thorax 2010;65:600-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx. 2009.133751
82. Rasmussen JF, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST). Lung Cancer 2015;87:65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.11.003
83. Aggestrup LM, Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000663. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000663
84. van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, Th Scholten E, Prokop M, de Koning HJ, van Klaveren RJ. Short-term health-related quality of life consequences in a lung cancer CT screening trial (NELSON). Br J Cancer 2010;102:27-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605459
85. van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, 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. Eur Respir J 2011;38:154-61. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00123410
86. Brain K, Lifford KJ, Carter B, Burke O, McRonald F, Devaraj A, et al. Long-term psychosocial outcomes of low-dose CT screening: results of the UK Lung Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2016;71:996-1005. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208283
87. Ashraf H, Tønnesen P, Holst Pedersen J, Dirksen A, Thorsen H, Døssing M. Effect of CT screening on smoking habits at 1-year follow-up in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). Thorax 2009;64:388-92. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2008.102475
88. van der Aalst CM, van Klaveren RJ, van den Bergh KA, Willemsen MC, de Koning HJ. The impact of a lung cancer computed tomography screening result on smoking abstinence. Eur Respir J 2011;37:1466-73. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00035410
89. Tammemägi MC, Berg CD, Riley TL, Cunningham CR, Taylor KL. Impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju084. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju084
90. Clark MA, Gorelick JJ, Sicks JD, Park ER, Graham AL, Abrams DB, Gareen IF. The relations between false positive and negative screens and smoking cessation and relapse in the National Lung Screening Trial: implications for public health. Nicotine Tob Res 2016;18:17-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntv037
91. van’t Westeinde S, Horeweg N, Leyn P, Groen H, Lammers J, Weenink C, et al. Complications following lung surgery in the Dutch-Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;42:420-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezs081
92. Sverzellati N, Silva M, Calareso G, Galeone C, Marchianò A, Sestini S, et al. Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: comparison of performance between annual and biennial screen. Eur Radiol 2016;26:3821-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4228-3
93. Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD, Black WC, Brewer B, Church TR, et al. Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med 2013;369:920-31. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1208962
94. van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Vernhout R, et al. Management of lung nodules detected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J Med 2009;361:2221-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0906085
95. Patz EF, Pinsky P, Gatsonis C, Sicks JD, Kramer BS, Tammemägi MC, et al. Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:269-74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12738
96. Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML, Eigentopf A, Heussel CP, Dienemann H, et al. Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: results of the first 3 years of follow-up after randomization. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:890-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000530
97. Larke FJ, Kruger RL, Cagnon CH, Flynn MJ, McNitt-Gray MM, Wu X, et al. Estimated radiation dose associated with low-dose chest CT of average-size participants in the National Lung Screening Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1165-9. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6533
98. Kruger R, Flynn MJ, Judy PF, Cagnon CH, Seibert JA. Effective dose assessment for participants in the National Lung Screening Trial undergoing posteroanterior chest radiographic examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:142-6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9181
99. Carter JL, Coletti RJ, Harris RP. Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods. BMJ 2015;350:g7773. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7773
100. Rampinelli C, De Marco P, Origgi D, Maisonneuve P, Casiraghi M, Veronesi G, et al. Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis. BMJ 2017;356:j347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j347
101. Vardhanabhuti V, Pang CL, Tenant S, Taylor J, Hyde C, Roobottom C. Prospective intra-individual comparison of standard dose versus reduced-dose thoracic CT using hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction in a follow-up cohort of pulmonary nodules - Effect of detectability of pulmonary nodules with lowering dose based on nodule size, type and body mass index. Eur J Radiol 2017;91:130-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.006
102. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:163-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
103. White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata J 2011;11:255.
104. Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:98-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1044
105. Kubík A, Haerting J. Survival and mortality in a randomized study of lung cancer detection. Neoplasma 1990;37:467-75.
106. Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Fagerstrom RM, Williams DE, Fontana R, Taylor WF, Prorok PC. Lung cancer mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: impact of extended follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1308-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.16.1308
107. Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Church TR, et al. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA 2011;306:1865-73. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1591
108. Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Taylor WF, Woolner LB, Miller WE, Muhm JR, et al. Early lung cancer detection: results of the initial (prevalence) radiologic and cytologic screening in the Mayo Clinic study. Am Rev Respir Dis 1984;130:561-5.
109. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:240-5.
110. Black WC. Computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Thorac Imaging 2015;30:79-87. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000136
111. 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. N Engl JMed 2014;371:1793-802. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1312547
112. Goffin JR, Flanagan WM, Miller AB, Fitzgerald NR, Memon S, Wolfson MC, Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening in Canada. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:807-13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2472
113. Goffin JR, Flanagan WM, Miller AB, Fitzgerald NR, Memon S, Wolfson MC, Evans WK. Biennial lung cancer screening in Canada with smoking cessation-outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Lung Cancer 2016;101:98-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.09.013
114. 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. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1841-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e31822e59b3
115. ten Haaf K, Tammemägi MC, Bondy SJ, van der Aalst CM, Gu S, McGregor SE, et al. Performance and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography lung cancer screening scenarios in a population-based setting: a microsimulation modeling analysis in Ontario, Canada. PLOS Med 2017;14:e1002225. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002225
116. Field JK, Duffy SW, Baldwin DR, Whynes DK, Devaraj A, Brain KE, 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 2016;71:161-70. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207140
117. Whynes DK. Could CT screening for lung cancer ever be cost effective in the United Kingdom? Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2008;6:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-6-5
118. Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, Chu CW. Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:1759-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(01)00205-2
119. Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, Chu C. Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort. Lung Cancer 2001;32:227-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5002(00)00239-7
120. Chirikos TN, Hazelton T, Tockman M, Clark R. Screening for lung cancer with CT: a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis. Chest 2002;121:1507-14. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.121.5.1507
121. 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;289:313-22. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.3.313
122. Wisnivesky JP, Mushlin AI, Sicherman N, Henschke C. The cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: preliminary results of baseline screening. Chest 2003;124:614-21. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.124.2.614
123. 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;48:171-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.11.001
124. 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;10:267-75. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2012.0023
125. 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 Aff 2012;31:770-9. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0814
126. Shmueli A, Fraifeld S, Peretz T, Gutfeld O, Gips M, Sosna J, Shaham D. Cost-effectiveness of baseline low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: the Israeli experience. Value Health 2013;16:922-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.05.007
127. 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:e71379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071379
128. Pyenson BS, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Yip R, Dec E. 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.
129. Tabata H, Akita T, Matsuura A, Kaishima T, Matsuoka T, Ohisa M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the introduction of low-dose CT screening in Japanese smokers aged 55 to 74 years old. Hiroshima J Med Sci 2014;63:13-22..
130. Klittich WS, Caro JJ. Lung cancer screening: will the controversy extend to its cost-effectiveness? Am J Respir Med 2002;1:393-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03257166.
131. Murtagh J, Foerster V, Warburton RN, Lentle BC, Wood RJ, Mensinkai S, et al. Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of CT and MRI for Selected Clinical Disorders: Results of Two Systematic Reviews. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006..
132. Murtagh J, Warburton RN, Foerster V, Lentle BC, Wood RJ, Mensinkai S, et al. CT and MRI for Selected Clinical Disorders: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006..
133. Puggina A, Broumas A, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic literature review. Eur J Public Health 2016;26:168-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv158.
134. 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. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2016;14:409-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0226-5.
135. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Miettinen OS, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999;354:99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)06093-6
136. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) - explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013;16:231-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
137. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2013. www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9 (accessed 14 February 2017).
138. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Guidance to Manufacturers for Completion of New Product Assessment Form (NPAF). 2016. www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/submissionprocess/Guidance:on_NPAF_Final_October_2016.doc (archived by WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6oGzBw320) (accessed 14 February 2017).
139. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. Form B Guidance Notes. 2016. www.awmsg.org/docs/awmsg/appraisaldocs/inforandforms/Form%20B%20guidance%20notes.pdf (archived by WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6oGzgKGKI)(accessed 14 February 2017).
140. HM Treasury. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government: Treasury Guidance. London: HM Treasury; 2003.
141. Plummer M. JAGS: Just Another Gibbs Sampler. 2004. http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/(accessed 14 February 2017).
142. Moyer VA, Force USPST. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:330-8. https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2771
143. NHS Digital. Statistics on Smoking: England, 2016. 2016. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB20781/stat-smok-eng-2016-tab.xlsx (accessed 5 May 2017).
144. Office for National Statistics. Population Estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: Mid- 2015. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2016. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2015 (accessed 15 June 2017).
145. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.
146. Plummer M, Best N, Cowles K, Vines K. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 2006;6:7-11.
147. Office for National Statistics. Interim Life Tables: England and Wales, 2010- 2012. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2013. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/interimlifetables/englandandwales20102012 (accessed 21 June 2017).
148. Continuous Mortality Investigation, Mortality Committee. Working paper 21 - The Graduation of the CMI 1999-2002 Mortality Experience: Final ‘00’ Series Mortality Tables - Assured Lives. London: Institute and Faculty of Actuaries; 2006.
149. Office for National Statistics. Deaths Registered in England and Wales, 2014: Table 5.2 Neoplasms. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2015. www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationand community/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsregisteredinenglandandwalesseriesdr referencetables/2014table5/table5causeofdeath_tcm77-422538.xls (accessed 5 May 2017).
150. Cassidy A, Myles JP, van Tongeren M, Page RD, Liloglou T, Duffy SW, Field JK. The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2008;98:270-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604158
151. Raji OY, Duffy SW, Agbaje OF, Baker SG, Christiani DC, Cassidy A, Field JK. Predictive accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project risk model for stratifying patients for computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a case-control and cohort validation study. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:242-50. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-4-201208210-00004
152. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095-108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002
153. Mazzone PJ, Obuchowski N, Fu AZ, Phillips M, Meziane M. Quality of life and healthcare use in a randomized controlled lung cancer screening study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013;10:324-9. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201301-007OC
154. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005;43:203-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003
155. Craig R, Mindell J, editors. Health Survey for England 2014: Health, Social Care and Lifestyles. Summary of Key Findings. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2014.
156. Chouaid C, Agulnik J, Goker E, Herder GJ, Lester JF, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Health-related quality of life and utility in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective cross-sectional patient survey in a real-world setting. J Thorac Oncol 2013;8:997-1003. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318299243b
157. Grutters JP, Joore MA, Wiegman EM, Langendijk JA, de Ruysscher D, Hochstenbag M, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients surviving non-small cell lung cancer. Thorax 2010;65:903-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.136390
158. Jang RW, Isogai PK, Mittmann N, Bradbury PA, Shepherd FA, Feld R, Leighl NB. Derivation of utility values from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 questionnaire values in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:1953-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f77a6a
159. Tramontano AC, Schrag DL, Malin JK, Miller MC, Weeks JC, Swan JS, McMahon PM. Catalog and comparison of societal preferences (utilities) for lung cancer health states: results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Med Decis Making 2015;35:371-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15570364
160. Yang SC, Lai WW, Chang HY, Su WC, Chen HH, Wang JD. Estimation of loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) for patients with operable versus inoperable lung cancer: adjusting quality-of-life and lead-time bias for utility of surgery. Lung Cancer 2014;86:96-101. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.08.006
161. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF- 12. Med Care 2004;42:851-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d
162. Sturza J. A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer. Med Decis Making 2010;30:685-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10369004
163. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2015 to 2016. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2016. URL:www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs- 2015-to-2016 (accessed 15 December 2016).
164. Kennedy MP, Hall PS, Callister ME. Factors affecting hospital costs in lung cancer patients in the United Kingdom. Lung Cancer 2016;97:8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.04.009
165. McGuire A, Martin M, Lenz C, Sollano JA. Treatment cost of non-small cell lung cancer in three European countries: comparisons across France, Germany, and England using administrative databases. J Med Econ 2015;18:525-32. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2015.1032974
166. Round J, Jones L, Morris S. Estimating the cost of caring for people with cancer at the end of life: a modelling study. Palliat Med 2015;29:899-907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216315595203
167. Lyratzopoulos G, Neal RD, Barbiere JM, Rubin GP, Abel GA. Variation in number of general practitioner consultations before hospital referral for cancer: findings from the 2010 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey in England. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:353-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70041-4
168. Vinod SK, Sidhom MA, Gabriel GS, Lee MT, Delaney GP. Why do some lung cancer patients receive no anticancer treatment? J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:1025-32. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181da85e4
169. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2016.
170. Quaife SL, Marlow LAV, McEwen A, Janes SM, Wardle J. Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication. Health Expect 2017;20:563-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12481
171. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
172. Dawe F. Smoking. In General Lifestyle Survey Overview - A Report on the 2011 General Lifestyle Survey. Newport: Office for National Statistics. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/compendium/generallifestylesurvey/2013-03-07/chapter1smokinggenerallifestylesurveyoverviewareportonthe2011generallifestylesurvey (accessed 29 June 2018).
173. Siahpush M, McNeill A, Borland R, Fong GT. Socioeconomic variations in nicotine dependence, self-efficacy, and intention to quit across four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control 2006;15(Suppl. 3):iii71-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2004.008763
174. Baldwin DR, O’Dowd EL. Next steps and barriers to implementing lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Br J Radiol 2014;87:20140416. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140416
175. Hestbech MS, Siersma V, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Brodersen J. Participation bias in a randomised trial of screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011;73:325-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.12.018
176. Bryan L, Westmaas L, Alcaraz K, Jemal A. Cigarette smoking and cancer screening underutilization by state: BRFSS 2010. Nicotine Tob Res 2014;16:1183-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu047
177. Byrne MM, Davila EP, Zhao W, Parker D, Hooper MW, Caban-Martinez A, et al. Cancer screening behaviors among smokers and non-smokers. Cancer Epidemiol 2010;34:611-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2010.06.017
178. Vander Weg MW, Howren MB, Cai X. Use of routine clinical preventive services among daily smokers, non-daily smokers, former smokers, and never-smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2012;14:123-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntr141
179. Hayton C, Clark A, Olive S, Browne P, Galey P, Knights E, et al. Barriers to pulmonary rehabilitation: characteristics that predict patient attendance and adherence. Respir Med 2013;107:401-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2012.11.016
180. Dalton AR, Bottle A, Okoro C, Majeed A, Millett C. Uptake of the NHS Health Checks programme in a deprived, culturally diverse setting: cross-sectional study. J Public Health 2011;33:422-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdr034
181. Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Beeken RJ, McEwen A, Isitt J, Nolan G, et al. The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and ‘hard-to-reach’ patients. BMC Cancer 2016;16:281. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2316-z
182. Quaife SL, McEwen A, Janes SM, Wardle J. Attitudes towards lung cancer screening within socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: a qualitative study. Lancet 2014;384:S16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62142-5
183. Silvestri GA, Nietert PJ, Zoller J, Carter C, Bradford D. Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts. Thorax 2007;62:126-30. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2005.056036
184. Patel D, Akporobaro A, Chinyanganya N, Hackshaw A, Seale C, Spiro SG, Griffiths C, Lung-SEARCH Investigators. Attitudes to participation in a lung cancer screening trial: a qualitative study. Thorax 2012;67:418-25. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200055
185. Delmerico J, Hyland A, Celestino P, Reid M, Cummings KM. Patient willingness and barriers to receiving a CT scan for lung cancer screening. Lung Cancer 2014;84:307-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.03.003
186. Jonnalagadda S, Bergamo C, Lin JJ, Lurslurchachai L, Diefenbach M, Smith C, et al. Beliefs and attitudes about lung cancer screening among smokers. Lung Cancer 2012;77:526-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.05.095
187. Byrne MM, Weissfeld J, Roberts MS. Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening. Med Decis Making 2008;28:917-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08322013
188. Wardle J, Pope R. The psychological costs of screening for cancer. J Psychosom Res 1992;36:609-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(92)90051-3
189. Bunge EM, van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, van Klaveren RJ, de Koning HJ. High affective risk perception is associated with more lung cancer-specific distress in CT screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2008;62:385-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.03.029
190. Plank A, Nemesure B, Bilfinger T, Campolo-Athans S, Aleyas S. Lung cancer screening and self-reported distress. Chest 2014;146:594A. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.1991267
191. Slatore CG, Sullivan DR, Pappas M, Humphrey LL. Patient-centered outcomes among lung cancer screening recipients with computed tomography: a systematic review. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:927-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000210
192. Wu GX, Raz DJ, Brown L, Sun V. Psychological burden associated with lung cancer screening: a systematic review. Clin Lung Cancer 2016;17:315-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2016.03.007
193. Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, Hyde C. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(13). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17130
194. Wiener RS, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Clark JA. What do you mean, a spot?: A qualitative analysis of patients’ reactions to discussions with their physicians about pulmonary nodules. Chest 2013;143:672-7. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-1095
195. Quaife SL, Janes SM. Lung cancer screening: improving understanding of the psychological impact. Thorax 2016;71:971-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208966
196. Freiman MR, Clark JA, Slatore CG, Gould MK, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Wiener RS. Patients’ knowledge, beliefs, and distress associated with detection and evaluation of incidental pulmonary nodules for cancer: results from a multicenter survey. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:700-8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.01.018
197. Ruparel M, Navani N. Fulfilling the dream. Toward reducing inequalities in lung cancer screening. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;192:125-7. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-0897ED
198. MacRedmond R, McVey G, Lee M, Costello RW, Kenny D, Foley C, Logan PM. Screening for lung cancer using low dose CT scanning: results of 2 year follow up. Thorax 2006;61:54-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2004.037580
199. Schnoll RA, Miller SM, Unger M, McAleer C, Halbherr T, Bradley P. Characteristics of female smokers attending a lung cancer screening program: a pilot study with implications for program development. Lung Cancer 2002;37:257-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5002(02)00106-X
200. Cox LS, Clark MM, Jett JR, Patten CA, Schroeder DR, Nirelli LM, et al. Change in smoking status after spiral chest computed tomography scan screening. Cancer 2003;98:2495-501. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11813
201. Anderson CM, Yip R, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Ostroff JS, Burns DM. Smoking cessation and relapse during a lung cancer screening program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:3476-83. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0176
202. Riaz SP, Horton M, Kang J, Mak V, Lüchtenborg M, Møller H. Lung cancer incidence and survival in England: an analysis by socioeconomic deprivation and urbanization. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:2005-10. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e31822b02db
203. NICE Citizens Council. Are There Circumstances In Which the Age of a Person Should be Taken into Account when NICE is Making a Decision about How Treatments Should be Used in the NHS? London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2003.
204. NICE Citizens Council. What Are the Societal Values That Need to be Considered When Making Decisions About Trade-Offs Between Equity and Efficiency? London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
205. NICE Citizens Council. Determining ‘Clinical Need’. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2002.
206. Usman Ali M, Miller J, Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Kenny M, Sherifali D, Raina P. Screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2016;89:301-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.015
207. Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Mitchell JP, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:411-20. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-6-201309170-00690
208. Bach PB. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA 2012;308:1324. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.9005
209. Black C, de Verteuil R, Walker S, Ayres J, Boland A, Bagust A, Waugh N. Population screening for lung cancer using computed tomography, is there evidence of clinical effectiveness? A systematic review of the literature. Thorax 2007;62:131-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2006.064659
210. Chang CY, Chang SJ, Chang SC, Yuan MK. The value of positron emission tomography in early detection of lung cancer in high-risk population: a systematic review. Clin Respir J 2013;7:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-699X.2012.00290.x
211. Chien CR, Liang JA, Chen JH, Wang HN, Lin CC, Chen CY, et al. [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Imaging 2013;13:458-65. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0038
212. Coureau G, Salmi LR, Etard C, Sancho-Garnier H, Sauvaget C, Mathoulin-Pélissier S. Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in populations highly exposed to tobacco: a systematic methodological appraisal of published randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer 2016;61:146-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.04.006
213. Fu CP, Liu ZL, Zhu F, Li SQ, Jiang LY. A meta-analysis: is low-dose computed tomography a superior method for risky lung cancers screening population? Clin Respir J 2016;10:333-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/crj.12222
214. Gopal M, Abdullah SE, Grady JJ, Goodwin JS. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the baseline findings of randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:1233-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181e0b977
215. Piñeiro B, Simmons VN, Palmer AM, Correa JB, Brandon TH. Smoking cessation interventions within the context of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review. Lung Cancer 2016;98:91-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.05.028
216. Seigneurin A, Field JK, Gachet A, Duffy SW. A systematic review of the characteristics associated with recall rates, detection rates and positive predictive values of computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2014;25:781-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt491
217. Slatore CG, Baumann C, Pappas M, Humphrey LL. Smoking behaviors among patients receiving computed tomography for lung cancer screening. Systematic review in support of the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014;11:619-27. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201312-460OC
218. Wang Z, Hu Y, Wang Y, Han W, Wang L, Xue F, et al. Can CT screening give rise to a beneficial stage shift in lung cancer patients? Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 2016;11:e0164416. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164416
219. Yau G, Lock M, Rodrigues G. Systematic review of baseline low-dose CT lung cancer screening. Lung Cancer 2007;58:161-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.07.006
220. van Rosmalen J, Toy M, O’Mahony JF. A mathematical approach for evaluating Markov models in continuous time without discrete-event simulation. Med Decis Making 2013;33:767-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13487947