Lung Cancer Screening With Helical Computed Tomography in Older Adult Smokers: A Decision and Cost-effectiveness Analysis | Cancer Screening, Prevention, Control | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.238.77. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Lerner  B.  Screening for cancer: a downside.  New York Times. March5 , 2002:D6.Google Scholar
2.
Kolata  G.  Lung cancer test is much in demand, but benefit is murky.  New York Times. June21 , 2001:A1-A14.Google Scholar
3.
Brice  J.  Low-dose CT: the promise and the paradox of lung cancer screening.  Diagn Imaging (San Franc). 2000;22:44-53. PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Lee  TH, Brennan  TA.  Direct-to-consumer marketing of high-technology screening tests.  N Engl J Med. 2002;346:529-531. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Travis  WD, Travis  LB, Devesa  SS.  Lung cancer.  Cancer. 1995;75(suppl 1):191-202. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Fontana  RS, Sanderson  DR, Woolner  LB, Taylor  WF, Miller  WE, Muhm  JR.  Lung cancer screening: the Mayo program.  J Occup Med. 1986;28:746-750. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Tockman  MS.  Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a screened population: the Johns Hopkins study.  Chest. 1986;89(suppl 4):324S-326S.Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Melamed  MR, Flehinger  BJ, Zaman  MB.  Impact of early detection on the clinical course of lung cancer.  Surg Clin North Am. 1987;67:909-924. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Kubik  A, Parkin  DM, Khlat  M, Erban  J, Polak  J, Adamec  M.  Lack of benefit from semi-annual screening for cancer of the lung: follow-up report of a randomized controlled trial on a population of high-risk males in Czechoslovakia.  Int J Cancer. 1990;45:26-33. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Fontana  RS, Sanderson  DR, Woolner  LB,  et al.  Screening for lung cancer: a critique of the Mayo Lung Project.  Cancer. 1991;67(suppl 4):1155-1164. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Hulka  BS.  Screening for cancer: lessons learned.  J Occup Med. 1986;28:687-691. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Henschke  CI, McCauley  DI, Yankelevitz  DF,  et al.  Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening.  Lancet. 1999;354:99-105. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Henschke  CI, Naidich  DP, Yankelevitz  DF,  et al.  Early lung cancer action project: initial findings on repeat screenings.  Cancer. 2001;92:153-159. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Sone  S, Li  F, Yang  ZG,  et al.  Results of three-year mass screening programme for lung cancer using mobile low-dose spiral computed tomography scanner.  Br J Cancer. 2001;84:25-32. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Swensen  SJ, Jett  JR, Sloan  JA,  et al.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165:508-513. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Sone  S, Takashima  S, Li  F,  et al.  Mass screening for lung cancer with mobile spiral computed tomography scanner.  Lancet. 1998;351:1242-1245. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Sobue  T, Moriyama  N, Kaneko  M,  et al.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose helical computed tomography: anti-lung cancer association project.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:911-920. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Patz Jr  EF, Goodman  PC, Bepler  G.  Screening for lung cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1627-1633. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kaneko  M, Eguchi  K, Ohmatsu  H,  et al.  Peripheral lung cancer: screening and detection with low-dose spiral CT versus radiography.  Radiology. 1996;201:798-802. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Henschke  CI, Yankelevitz  DF.  CT screening for lung cancer.  Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:487-495. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Patz Jr  EF, Rossi  S, Harpole Jr  DH, Herndon  JE, Goodman  PC.  Correlation of tumor size and survival in patients with stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.  Chest. 2000;117:1568-1571. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.  Early Lung Cancer Screening Workshop. March7-8 , 2001; Rockville, Md.
23.
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.  Fifty thousand current and former smokers needed for National Lung Screening Trial [press release].  September18 , 2002. Available at: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sep2002/nci-19a.htm. Accessibility verified December 18, 2002.
24.
Not Available.  Sprial CT screens raise scientific, economic issues.  Oncol News Int. 2000;9:1-30.Google Scholar
25.
Kolata  G.  Questions grow over usefulness of some routine cancer tests.  New York Times. December30 , 2001:A1-A16.Google Scholar
26.
Grannis Jr  F.  Lung cancer screening: who will pick up the tab?  Chest. 2002;121:1388-1390. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
National Cancer Institute.  Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Public-Use Data (1973-1998) [database on CD-ROM]. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute; 2001.
28.
Not Available.  DevCan: Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer [computer program]. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute; 2001.
29.
DeCamp Jr  MM, Jaklitsch  MT, Mentzer  SJ, Harpole Jr  DH, Sugarbaker  DJ.  The safety and versatility of video-thoracoscopy: a prospective analysis of 895 consecutive cases.  J Am Coll Surg. 1995;181:113-120. PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Jaklitsch  MT, DeCamp Jr  MM, Liptay  MJ,  et al.  Video-assisted thoracic surgery in the elderly: a review of 307 cases.  Chest. 1996;110:751-758. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Celik  M, Halezeroglu  S, Senol  C,  et al.  Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: experience with 341 cases.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1998;14:113-116. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Shah  SS, Tsang  V, Goldstraw  P.  Open lung biopsy: a safe, reliable, and accurate method for diagnosis in diffuse lung disease.  Respiration. 1992;59:243-246. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Sagel  SS, Ferguson  TB, Forrest  JV, Roper  CL, Weldon  CS, Clark  RE.  Percutaneous transthoracic aspiration needle biopsy.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1978;26:399-405. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Bach  PB, Cramer  LD, Schrag  D, Downey  RJ, Gelfand  SE, Begg  CB.  The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2001;345:181-188. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Trippoli  S, Vaiani  M, Lucioni  C, Messori  A.  Quality of life and utility in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.  Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:855-863. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Earle  CC, Chapman  RH, Baker  CS,  et al.  Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology.  J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3302-3317. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
American Medical Association.  1998 National Physician Fee Schedule Relative Value File. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1998.
38.
Thomson Healthcare.  Red Book: Drug Topics 2001. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Co Inc; 2001.
39.
Fireman  BH, Quesenberry  CP, Somkin  CP,  et al.  Cost of care for cancer in a health maintenance organization.  Health Care Financ Rev. 1997;18:51-76. PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).  Caregiving in the United States: Findings From a National Survey. Bethesda, Md and Washington, DC: NAC/AARP; 2001.
41.
Hillner  BE, Smith  TJ.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of three regimens using vinorelbine (Navelbine) for non-small cell lung cancer.  Semin Oncol. 1996;23(suppl 2pt 5):25-30. PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Gurley  MB, Richli  WR, Waugh  KA.  Outpatient management of pneumothorax after fine-needle aspiration: economic advantages for the hospital and patient.  Radiology. 1998;209:717-722. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Not Available.  Data Pro Pro [computer program]. Version 6.0. Boston, Mass: TreeAge Inc; 2002.
44.
Burns  DM.  Primary prevention, smoking, and smoking cessation: implications for future trends in lung cancer prevention.  Cancer. 2000;89(suppl 11):2506-2509. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Peto  R, Darby  S, Deo  H, Silcocks  P, Whitley  E, Doll  R.  Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies.  BMJ. 2000;321:323-329. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Eddy  DM.  Screening for lung cancer.  Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:73-74. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Melamed  MR, Flehinger  BJ, Zaman  MB, Heelan  RT, Perchick  WA, Martini  N.  Screening for early lung cancer: results of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering study in New York.  Chest. 1984;86:44-53. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Walter  SD, Kubik  A, Parkin  DM, Reissigova  J, Adamec  M, Khlat  M.  The natural history of lung cancer estimated from the results of a randomized trial of screening.  Cancer Causes Control. 1992;3:115-123. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Dolan  P.  Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states.  Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Palmisano  WA, Divine  KK, Saccomanno  G,  et al.  Predicting lung cancer by detecting aberrant promoter methylation in sputum.  Cancer Res. 2000;60:5954-5958.Google Scholar
51.
Harris  RP, Helfand  M, Woolf  SH,  et al.  Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.  Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(suppl 3):21-35. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Fry  WA, Phillips  JL, Menck  HR.  Ten-year survey of lung cancer treatment and survival in hospitals in the United States: a national cancer data base report.  Cancer. 1999;86:1867-1876. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Contribution
January 15, 2003

Lung Cancer Screening With Helical Computed Tomography in Older Adult Smokers: A Decision and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program (Drs Mahadevia and Powe); Departments of Medicine (Drs Mahadevia and Powe), Anesthesiology (Dr Fleisher), Radiology (Dr Eng), and Oncology (Dr Goodman), Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md; Departments of Health Policy and Management (Drs Fleisher, Frick, Goodman, and Powe) and Epidemiology (Drs Goodman and Powe), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore; Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore (Dr Powe); and MEDTAP International, Bethesda, Md (Dr Mahadevia).

JAMA. 2003;289(3):313-322. doi:10.1001/jama.289.3.313
Abstract

Context  Encouraged by direct-to-consumer marketing, smokers and their physicians are contemplating lung cancer screening with a promising but unproven imaging procedure, helical computed tomography (CT).

Objective  To estimate the potential benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with helical CT in various efficacy scenarios.

Design, Setting, and Population  Using a computer-simulated model, we compared annual helical CT screening to no screening for hypothetical cohorts of 100 000 current, quitting, and former heavy smokers, aged 60 years, of whom 55% were men. We simulated efficacy by changing the clinical stage distribution of lung cancers so that the screened group would have fewer advanced-stage cancers and more localized-stage cancers than the nonscreened group (ie, a stage shift). Our model incorporated known biases in screening programs such as lead time, length, and overdiagnosis bias.

Main Outcome Measures  We measured the benefits of screening by comparing the absolute and relative difference in lung cancer–specific deaths. We measured harms by the number of false-positive invasive tests or surgeries per 100 000 and incremental cost-effectiveness in US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results  Over a 20-year period, assuming a 50% stage shift, the current heavy smoker cohort had 553 fewer lung cancer deaths (13% lung cancer–specific mortality reduction) and 1186 false-positive invasive procedures per 100 000 persons. The incremental cost-effectiveness for current smokers was $116 300 per QALY gained. For quitting and former smokers, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $558 600 and $2 322 700 per QALY gained, respectively. Other than the degree of stage shift, the most influential parameters were adherence to screening, degree of length or overdiagnosis bias in the first year of screening, quality of life of persons with screen-detected localized lung cancers, cost of helical CT, and anxiety about indeterminate nodule diagnoses. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, none of these parameters was sufficient to make screening highly cost-effective for any of the cohorts. In multiway sensitivity analyses, a program screening current smokers was $42 500 per QALY gained if extremely favorable estimates were used for all of the influential parameters simultaneously.

Conclusion  Even if efficacy is eventually proven, screening must overcome multiple additional barriers to be highly cost-effective. Given the current uncertainty of benefits, the harms from invasive testing, and the high costs associated with screening, direct-to-consumer marketing of helical CT is not advisable.

×