Virtual Library
Start Your Search
N. Fitzgerald
Author of
-
+
O05 - Cancer Control (ID 130)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Prevention & Epidemiology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:N. Van Zandwijk, A. McWilliams
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 10:30 - 12:00, Bayside Auditorium A, Level 1
-
+
O05.05 - Biennial lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan - a simulation of cost effectiveness in Canada (ID 2313)
11:15 - 11:25 | Author(s): N. Fitzgerald
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Randomized data support annual screening for lung cancer among smokers using low-dose CT scans. To compare the resource implications of annual versus biennial screening, a cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using the Cancer Risk Management Model (CRMM version 2.0.1) in the context of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system.Methods
The CRMM performs simulations at an individual level and incorporates demographic data, cancer risk factors, cancer registry data, diagnostic and treatment algorithms and health utilities. Outputs are aggregated and costs (in 2008 Cdn dollars) and life-years are discounted at 3% annually. Simulations were performed with a cohort 55-74 years and a ≥30 pack-year (p-y) smoking history recruited from 2012-2032. CT scan sensitivity (Sens) and specificity (Spec) and cohort outcomes were based on NLST and Canadian data. It was assumed 60% of the eligible population participates by 10 years, 70% adhere to the screening regimen, and smoking cessation rates are unchanged. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken.Results
An annual screening program incurs net costs of $2.97 billion and saves 55,000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $53,700 per QALY. Under default biennial screening assumptions (Table 1, scenario 3), biennial screening costs are $1.81 billion, saving 32,000 QALYs and producing an ICER of $56,200. In the least favourable stage shift scenario (1) tested, the ICER is $275,000, whereas the most favourable shift (4) results in $49,300. Using Sens/Spec 0.90/0.73 for all scans in scenario 3 produces an ICER of $61,400, whereas changing all incidence scan Sens/Spec to 0.87/0.73 gives an ICER of $60,900. Increasing age of eligibility to 55-79 cost $2.25 billion at an ICER of $58,700 per QALY while requiring a 40 p-y smoking history reduced cost to $1.3 billion at an ICER of $49,800 per QALY. Table 1.
T0, T1 refer to the NLST stage shift at specified time, where T0 equals shift at time zero screen, T1 shift at 12 month screen. T0/T1 indicates an average. CD: the unscreened Canadian stage distribution. PS: NLST post-screening stage shift. *Represents 3[rd] year and all future odd years. **Represents 4[th] year and all future even years. Hyphens indicate years without screening.Year Stage Shift Scenario Sens/ Spec 1 2 3 4 5 0 T0 T0 T0 T0 T0 0.9/0.73 1 CD PS PS PS CD - 2 T0 T0 T0/T1 T1 T1 0.89/0.84 3* CD PS PS PS CD - 4** T0 T0 T0/T1 T1 T1 0.89/0.84 ICER $275,000 $65,000 $56,200 $49,300 $104,00 Conclusion
Compared to annual lung cancer screening, biennial screening reduces net cost but may have a similar ICER. Stage shift assumptions have a significant impact on ICER values. Minor adjustments in Sens/Spec modestly change the ICER. Widening the age range increases but increasing the p-y requirement reduces system costs.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
