• Iakovos Toumazis, Pianpian Cao, Koen de Nijs, Mehrad Bastani, Vidit Munshi, Mehdi Hemmati, Kevin Ten Haaf, Jihyoun Jeon, Martin Tammemägi, G Scott Gazelle, Eric J Feuer, Chung Yin Kong, Rafael Meza, Harry J de Koning, Sylvia K Plevritis, and Summer S Han.
• Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (I.T., M.H.).
• Ann. Intern. Med. 2023 Mar 1; 176 (3): 320332320-332.

BackgroundIn their 2021 lung cancer screening recommendation update, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) evaluated strategies that select people based on their personal lung cancer risk (risk model-based strategies), highlighting the need for further research on the benefits and harms of risk model-based screening.ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation and to explore optimal risk thresholds.DesignComparative modeling analysis.Data SourcesNational Lung Screening Trial; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; U.S. Smoking History Generator.Target Population1960 U.S. birth cohort.Time Horizon45 years.PerspectiveU.S. health care sector.InterventionAnnual low-dose computed tomography in risk model-based strategies that start screening at age 50 or 55 years, stop screening at age 80 years, with 6-year risk thresholds between 0.5% and 2.2% using the PLCOm2012 model.Outcome MeasuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier connecting strategies with the highest health benefit at a given cost.Results Of Base Case AnalysisRisk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and exclusively comprised the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Among the strategies on the efficiency frontier, those with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or greater were cost-effective with an ICER less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Specifically, the strategy with a 1.2% risk threshold had an ICER of $94 659 (model range, $72 639 to $156 774), yielding more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, while having a similar level of screening coverage (person ever-screened 21.7% vs. USPSTF's 22.6%).Results Of Sensitivity AnalysesRisk model-based strategies were robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendation under varying modeling assumptions.LimitationRisk models were restricted to age, sex, and smoking-related risk predictors.ConclusionRisk model-based screening is more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation, thus warranting further consideration.Primary Funding SourceNational Cancer Institute (NCI).

22 keywords...

hide…