Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Costs, National Expenditures, and Cost-Effectiveness

Authors: Bernardo H. L. Goulart MD, MS a , a , Mark E. Bensink PhD, MSc, MEd a , David G. Mummy MBA a and Scott D. Ramsey MD, PhD a , a
View More View Less
  • a From Research and Economic Assessment of Cancer and Healthcare (REACH), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Restricted access

A recent randomized trial showed that low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality. Health care providers need an assessment of the national budget impact and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening before this intervention is adopted in practice. Using data from the 2009 National Health Interview Survey, CMS, and the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the authors performed an economic analysis of LDCT screening that includes a budget impact model, an estimate of additional costs per lung cancer death avoided attributed to screening, and a literature search of cost-effectiveness analyses of LDCT screening. They conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis, reporting expenditures in 2011 U.S. dollars, and took the health care payer and patient perspectives. LDCT screening will add $1.3 to $2.0 billion in annual national health care expenditures for screening uptake rates of 50% to 75%, respectively. However, LDCT screening will avoid up to 8100 premature lung cancer deaths at a 75% screening rate. The prevalence of smokers who qualify for screening, screening uptake rates, and cost of LDCT scan were the most influential parameters on health care expenditures. The additional cost of screening to avoid one lung cancer death is $240,000. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not conclusively shown that LDCT is cost-effective. LDCT screening may add substantially to the national health care expenditures. Although LDCT screening can avoid more than 8000 lung cancer deaths per year, a cost-effectiveness analysis of the NLST will be critical to determine the value of this intervention and to guide decisions about its adoption.

Correspondence: Bernardo H. L. Goulart, MD, MS, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, M3-B232, Seattle, WA 98109. E-mail: bgoulart@fhcrc.org
  • 1

    Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:212236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Patz EF Jr, Goodman PC, Bepler G. Screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:16271633.

  • 3

    Mulshine JL, Sullivan DC. Clinical practice. Lung cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;352:27142720.

  • 4

    Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395409.

  • 5

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Helical CT scans and lung cancer screening. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/blog/nsb011011_ct.html. Accessed October 20, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Fiore K. Mortality benefit seen with CT halts lung cancer screening trial. MedPage Today. Available at: http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LungCancer/23158. Accessed October 20, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php. Accessed October 20, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Pleis JR, Ward BW, Lucas JW. Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2009. Vital Health Stat 2010;10:1217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Decrease in smoking prevalence—Minnesota, 1999–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:138141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Breen N, Gentleman JF, Schiller JS. Update on mammography trends: comparisons of rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008. Cancer 2011;117:22092218.

  • 11

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening, incidence, and mortality—United States, 2002–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:884889.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. National Institutes of Health, 2011. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/. Accessed October 24, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2011. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/. Accessed October 24, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:117128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Ou SH, Zell JA. Validation study of the proposed IASLC staging revisions of the T4 and M non-small cell lung cancer descriptors using data from 23,583 patients in the California Cancer Registry. J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:216227.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC. Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;355:25422550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Blue Cross of Idaho. MP 6.01.30: Screening for lung cancer using CT scanning or chest radiographs. Available at: https://www.bcidaho.com/providers/medical_policies/rad/mp_60130.asp. Accessed November 1, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare National Coverage Determinations Manual. Baltimore, MD: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2011:1143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Black C, Bagust A, Boland A. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2006;10:8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Chirikos TN, Hazelton T, Tockman M. Screening for lung cancer with CT: a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis. Chest 2002;121:15071514.

  • 21

    Mahadevia PJ, Fleisher LA, Fric KD. Lung, cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 2003;289:313322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC. Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort. Lung Cancer 2001;32:227236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC. Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:17591767.

  • 24

    Wisnivesky JP, Mushlin AI, Sicherman N. The cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: preliminary results of baseline screening. Chest 2003;124:614621.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Okamoto N. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in Japan. Cancer 2000;89:24892493.

  • 26

    Manser R, Dalton A, Carter R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer 2005;48:171185.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Castleberry AW, Smith D, Anderson C. Cost of a 5-year lung cancer survivor: symptomatic tumour identification vs proactive computed tomography screening. Br J Cancer 2009;101:882896.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Chien CR, Chen TH. Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with computed tomography. Value in Health 2009;12:A43.

  • 29

    McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:18411848.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Smith TJ, Hillner BE. Bending the cost curve in cancer care. N Engl J Med 2011;364:20602065.

  • 31

    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996;276:12531258.

  • 32

    Libby DM, Smith JP, Altorki NK. Managing the small pulmonary nodule discovered by CT. Chest 2004;125:15221529.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 831 574 36
PDF Downloads 196 144 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0