Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lung cancer screening program in the netherlands: a simulation based on NELSON and NLST study outcomes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND In the Netherlands, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death, accounting for more than 10,000 annual deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) studies using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) have demonstrated that early detection reduces lung cancer mortality. However, no LCS program has been implemented yet in the Netherlands. A national LCS program has the potential to enhance the health outcomes for lung cancer patients in the Netherlands. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of LCS compared to no-screening in the Netherlands, by simulating the screening outcomes based on data from NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). We simulated annual screening up to 74 years of age, using inclusion criteria from the respective studies. A decision tree and Markov model was used to predict the incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) for the screening population. The analysis used a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. RESULTS Compared to no-screening, LCS resulted in an ICER of €5,169 per QALY for the NELSON simulation, and an ICER of €17,119 per QALY for the NLST simulation. The screening costs were highly impactful for the cost-effectiveness. The most influential parameter was the CT scan cost. Cost reduction for CT from €201 to €101 per scan would reduce the ICER to €2,335 using NELSON criteria. Additionally, LCS could prevent 15,115 and 12,611 premature lung cancer deaths, accompanied by 1.66 and 1.31 QALYs gained per lung cancer case for the NELSON and NLST simulations, respectively. CONCLUSION LCS was estimated to be cost-effective in the Netherlands for both simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY. Using the NELSON criteria, less than €5,500 per QALY had to be spent. Lowering the cost per CT exam would lead to a further reduction of this amount.