Conventional Computed Tomographic Calcium Scoring vs Full Chest CTCS for Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Background Conventional CTCS images the mid/lower chest for coronary artery disease (CAD). Because many CAD patients are also at risk for lung malignancy, CTCS often discovers incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN). CTCS excludes the upper chest, where malignancy is common. Full-chest CTCS (FCT) may be a cost-effective screening tool for IPN. Methods A decision tree was created to compare a FCT to CTCS in a hypothetical patient cohort with suspected CAD. (Figure) The design compares the effects of missed cancers on CTCS with the cost of working up non-malignant nodules on FCT. The model was informed by results of the National Lung Screening Trial and literature review, including the rate of malignancy among patients receiving CTCS and the rate of malignancy in upper vs lower portions of the lung. The analysis outcomes are Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is generally considered beneficial when <$50,000/QALY. Results Literature review suggests that rate of IPNs in the upper portion of the lung varied from 47-76%. Our model assumed that IPNs occur in upper and lower portions of the lung with equal frequency. The model also assumes an equal malignancy potential in upper lung IPNs despite data that malignancy occurs 61-66% in upper lung fields. In the base case analysis, a FCT will lead to an increase of 0.03 QALYs comparing to conventional CTCS (14.54 vs 14.51 QALY, respectively), which translates into an QALY increase of 16 days. The associated incremental cost for FCT is $278 ($1,027 vs $748, FCT vs CTCS respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $10,289/QALY, suggesting significant benefit. Sensitivity analysis shows this benefit increases proportional to the rate of malignancy in upper lung fields. Conclusion Conventional CTCS may be a missed opportunity to screen for upper lung field cancers in high risk patients. The ICER of FCT is better than screening for breast cancer screening (mammograms $80k/QALY) and colon cancer (colonoscopy $6k/QALY). Prospective studies are appropriate to define protocols for FCT.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Posted 23 Dec, 2019
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 13 Jan, 2020
On 20 Dec, 2019
On 18 Dec, 2019
On 16 Dec, 2019
On 15 Dec, 2019
On 15 Dec, 2019
On 08 Nov, 2019
Received 07 Nov, 2019
On 24 Oct, 2019
Received 14 Oct, 2019
On 27 Aug, 2019
Invitations sent on 18 Aug, 2019
On 24 Jul, 2019
On 16 Jul, 2019
On 15 Jul, 2019
On 15 Jul, 2019
Conventional Computed Tomographic Calcium Scoring vs Full Chest CTCS for Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Posted 23 Dec, 2019
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 13 Jan, 2020
On 20 Dec, 2019
On 18 Dec, 2019
On 16 Dec, 2019
On 15 Dec, 2019
On 15 Dec, 2019
On 08 Nov, 2019
Received 07 Nov, 2019
On 24 Oct, 2019
Received 14 Oct, 2019
On 27 Aug, 2019
Invitations sent on 18 Aug, 2019
On 24 Jul, 2019
On 16 Jul, 2019
On 15 Jul, 2019
On 15 Jul, 2019
Background Conventional CTCS images the mid/lower chest for coronary artery disease (CAD). Because many CAD patients are also at risk for lung malignancy, CTCS often discovers incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN). CTCS excludes the upper chest, where malignancy is common. Full-chest CTCS (FCT) may be a cost-effective screening tool for IPN. Methods A decision tree was created to compare a FCT to CTCS in a hypothetical patient cohort with suspected CAD. (Figure) The design compares the effects of missed cancers on CTCS with the cost of working up non-malignant nodules on FCT. The model was informed by results of the National Lung Screening Trial and literature review, including the rate of malignancy among patients receiving CTCS and the rate of malignancy in upper vs lower portions of the lung. The analysis outcomes are Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is generally considered beneficial when <$50,000/QALY. Results Literature review suggests that rate of IPNs in the upper portion of the lung varied from 47-76%. Our model assumed that IPNs occur in upper and lower portions of the lung with equal frequency. The model also assumes an equal malignancy potential in upper lung IPNs despite data that malignancy occurs 61-66% in upper lung fields. In the base case analysis, a FCT will lead to an increase of 0.03 QALYs comparing to conventional CTCS (14.54 vs 14.51 QALY, respectively), which translates into an QALY increase of 16 days. The associated incremental cost for FCT is $278 ($1,027 vs $748, FCT vs CTCS respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $10,289/QALY, suggesting significant benefit. Sensitivity analysis shows this benefit increases proportional to the rate of malignancy in upper lung fields. Conclusion Conventional CTCS may be a missed opportunity to screen for upper lung field cancers in high risk patients. The ICER of FCT is better than screening for breast cancer screening (mammograms $80k/QALY) and colon cancer (colonoscopy $6k/QALY). Prospective studies are appropriate to define protocols for FCT.
Figure 1
Figure 2