How cost efficient is lung cancer screening?
Little is known about the cost-efficacy of lung cancer screening, which was considered to be a major hurdle for the implementation of a screening project. An actuarial analysis demonstrated, however, that, in the United States, lung cancer screening in high-risk populations would cost insurers less per life-year saved than colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer screening (24). Similar data comes from a study from Israel which showed that baseline LD-CT screening can be performed with relatively low costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (25). In this study, the estimated cost per QALY gained was as low as $20,000 (25). As health care systems differ significantly between countries, cost-efficacy analyses from one country cannot easily be translated to other countries.
What is the potential risk of the cumulative radiation dose?
The discussion about the potential risk of the cumulative radiation dose in LD-CT lung cancer screening from repeated screening CTs and potential follow-up CTs, has evened out in the last few years. In the NLST, the reported effective dose per screening CT was an average of 1.6 mSv for men and 2.1 mSv for women (25). However, due to the high number of follow-up examinations, the average cumulative radiation dose after three screening rounds added up to 8 mSv (10). This cumulative radiation dose was estimated to cause one cancer death per 2,500 persons screened (10). However, as in the NLST, lung cancer screening was able to improve the overall mortality by 7%; thus, the positive effect of screening outweighs the risk of radiation-induced cancer.
As modern CT scanners are able to scan the whole chest with less than 1 mSv, and future staging protocols will be performed with a dramatically lower recall rate, the cumulative radiation dose will decrease, and thus, the risk-benefit ratio will further improve.
More data from many different sources provide evidence that LD-CT lung cancer screening can be performed with a higher efficacy if inclusion criteria, as well as nodule management, are optimized. However, to date, only NLST has been able to show the benefits of LD-CT screening with regard to lung cancer and overall mortality. The promising data of the NLST is further supported by analyses, which have demonstrated, that LD-CT lung cancer screening can be performed with even greater efficacy if inclusion criteria as well as nodule management are optimized.
In addition, more and more data provide evidence to overcome potential hurdles in lung cancer screening such as questions regarding the extent of over-diagnosis and potential harms of the cumulative radiation dose. Questions regarding cost-efficiency of lung cancer screening have to be answered for each healthcare system separately.
As most of the data derives from one single study, the NLST, the data, needs to be confirmed, at least in part, by the pooled data of the ongoing European trials.
Disclosure: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Helmut Prosch, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna 1090, Austria
Correspondence to: Assoc. Prof. Helmut Prosch. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna 1090, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]
1. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409. [PubMed]
2. Detterbeck FC, Mazzone PJ, Naidich DP, et al. Screening for lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e78S-92S.
3. Jaklitsch MT, Jacobson FL, Austin JH, et al. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for lung cancer survivors and other high-risk groups. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;144:33-8. [PubMed]
4. Wender R, Fontham ET, Barrera E Jr, et al. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:107-17. [PubMed]
5. Eberth JM, Qiu R, Linder SK, et al. Computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a survey of society of thoracic radiology members. J Thorac Imaging 2014;29:289-92. [PubMed]
6. Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, et al. A randomized study of lung cancer screening with spiral computed tomography: three-year results from the DANTE trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;180:445-53. [PubMed]
7. Pastorino U, Rossi M, Rosato V, et al. Annual or biennial CT screening versus observation in heavy smokers: 5-year results of the MILD trial. Eur J Cancer Prev 2012;21:308-15. [PubMed]
8. Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Ashraf H, et al. CT screening for lung cancer brings forward early disease. The randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial: status after five annual screening rounds with low-dose CT. Thorax 2012;67:296-301. [PubMed]
9. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 2011;258:243-53. [PubMed]
10. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA 2012;307:2418-29. [PubMed]
11. Kovalchik SA, Tammemagi M, Berg CD, et al. Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. N Engl J Med 2013;369:245-54. [PubMed]
12. Baldwin DR, Duffy SW, Wald NJ, et al. UK Lung Screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Thorax 2011;66:308-13. [PubMed]
13. Field JK, Oudkerk M, Pedersen JH, et al. Prospects for population screening and diagnosis of lung cancer. Lancet 2013;382:732-41. [PubMed]
14. Becker N, Motsch E, Gross ML, et al. Randomized study on early detection of lung cancer with MSCT in Germany: study design and results of the first screening round. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2012;138:1475-86. [PubMed]
15. Duffy SW, Field JK, Allgood PC, et al. Translation of research results to simple estimates of the likely effect of a lung cancer screening programme in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 2014;110:1834-40. [PubMed]
16. Henschke CI, Yip R, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Definition of a positive test result in computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:246-52. [PubMed]
17. McWilliams A, Tammemagi MC, Mayo JR, et al. Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. N Engl J Med 2013;369:910-9. [PubMed]
18. Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS). ACR. Available online: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LungRADS
19. Manos D, Seely JM, Taylor J, et al. The Lung Reporting and Data System (LU-RADS): a proposal for computed tomography screening. Can Assoc Radiol J 2014;65:121-34. [PubMed]
20. Patz EF Jr, Pinsky P, Gatsonis C, et al. Overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:269-74. [PubMed]
21. Yankelevitz DF, Kostis WJ, Henschke CI, et al. Overdiagnosis in chest radiographic screening for lung carcinoma: frequency. Cancer 2003;97:1271-5. [PubMed]
22. Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Bellomi M, et al. Estimating overdiagnosis in low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:776-84. [PubMed]
23. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM Jr, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. JAMA 2013;310:797-8. [PubMed]
24. Pyenson BS, Sander MS, Jiang Y, et al. An actuarial analysis shows that offering lung cancer screening as an insurance benefit would save lives at relatively low cost. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012;31:770-9. [PubMed]
25. Shmueli A, Fraifeld S, Peretz T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of baseline low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: the Israeli experience. Value Health 2013;16:922-31. [PubMed]
Source: Translational Lung Cancer Research.