| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
|
|
|
|||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
* From the Division of General Internal Medicine (Dr. Wisnivesky), Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY; Departments of Public Health (Dr. Mushlin) and Radiology (Dr. Henschke), Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY; and Graduate School of Business (Dr. Sicherman), Columbia University, New York, NY.
Correspondence to: Claudia Henschke, MD, PhD, Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E Sixty-Eighth St, New York, NY 10021; e-mail: chensch{at}mail.med.cornell.edu
Background: Low-dose CT scan screening greatly improves the likelihood of detecting small nodules and, thus, of detecting lung cancer at a potentially more curable stage.
Methods: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single baseline low-dose CT scan for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals, data from the Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP) was incorporated into a decision analysis model comparing low-dose CT scan screening of high-risk individuals (ie, those 
60 years with at least 10 pack-years of cigarette smoking and no other malignancies) to observation without screening. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost per year of life saved. The analysis adopted the perspectives of the health-care system. The probability of the different outcomes following the decision either to screen or not to screen an individual at risk was based on data from ELCAP and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry or published data, respectively. The cost of the screening and treatment of patients with lung cancer was established based on data from the New York Presbyterian Hospital’s financial system. The base-case analysis was conducted under the assumption of similar aggressiveness of screen-detected and incidentally discovered lung cancers and then was followed by multiple sensitivity analyses to relax these assumptions.
Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a single baseline low-dose CT scan was $2,500 per year of life saved. The base-case analysis showed that screening would be expected to increase survival by 0.1 year at an incremental cost of approximately $230. Only when the likelihood of overdiagnosis was > 50% did the cost effectiveness ratio exceed $50,000 per year of life saved. The cost-effectiveness ratios were also relatively insensitive to estimates of the potential lead-time bias.
Conclusions: A baseline low-dose CT scan for lung cancer screening is potentially highly cost-effective and compares favorably to the cost-effectiveness ratios of other screening programs.
Key Words: cost-effectiveness • CT • lung cancer • screening
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Survival of Patients with Stage I Lung Cancer Detected on CT Screening N. Engl. J. Med., October 26, 2006; 355(17): 1763 - 1771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. K. Ganti and J. L. Mulshine Lung cancer screening. Oncologist, May 1, 2006; 11(5): 481 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F V Gleeson Is screening for lung cancer using low dose spiral CT scanning worthwhile? Thorax, January 1, 2006; 61(1): 5 - 7. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. N. Chhajed, M. Bernasconi, F. Gambazzi, L. Bubendorf, H. Rasch, S. Kneifel, and M. Tamm Combining Bronchoscopy and Positron Emission Tomography for the Diagnosis of the Small Pulmonary Nodule <= 3 cm Chest, November 1, 2005; 128(5): 3558 - 3564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Novello, C. Fava, P. Borasio, L. Dogliotti, G. Cortese, B. Crida, G. Selvaggi, P. Lausi, M. P. Brizzi, P. Sperone, et al. Three-year findings of an early lung cancer detection feasibility study with low-dose spiral computed tomography in heavy smokers Ann. Onc., October 1, 2005; 16(10): 1662 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. I. Henschke Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: Principles and Results Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2005; 11(13): 4984s - 4987s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Jett Limitations of Screening for Lung Cancer with Low-Dose Spiral Computed Tomography Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2005; 11(13): 4988s - 4992s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Mulshine and D. C. Sullivan Lung Cancer Screening N. Engl. J. Med., June 30, 2005; 352(26): 2714 - 2720. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. L. Mulshine New Developments in Lung Cancer Screening J. Clin. Oncol., May 10, 2005; 23(14): 3198 - 3202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. E. Chapman, D. F. Yankelevitz, C. I. Henschke, and D. Gur Lung Cancer Screening: Simulations of Effects of Imperfect Detection on Temporal Dynamics Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 582 - 590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Mulshine and J. N. Weinstein Is the Gene Expression Pattern of Lung Cancer Detected by Screening With Spiral Computed Tomography Different from That of Symptom-Detected Lung Cancer? Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2004; 10(18): 5973 - 5974. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Reich, N. Altorki, and M. Levin Stage IA Lung Cancer Size and Survival Chest, July 1, 2004; 126(1): 310 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A K Dixon Whole-body CT health screening Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2004; 77(917): 370 - 371. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. I. Henschke Medicine on Lung Cancer Screening: A Different Paradigm Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., November 15, 2003; 168(10): 1143 - 1144. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
