肺癌筛查低剂量计算机断层扫描:在英国使用新开发的基于自然历史的经济模型的替代方案的成本效益分析。

Edward Griffin, Chris Hyde, Linda Long, Jo Varley-Campbell, Helen Coelho, Sophie Robinson, Tristan Snowsill
{"title":"肺癌筛查低剂量计算机断层扫描:在英国使用新开发的基于自然历史的经济模型的替代方案的成本效益分析。","authors":"Edward Griffin,&nbsp;Chris Hyde,&nbsp;Linda Long,&nbsp;Jo Varley-Campbell,&nbsp;Helen Coelho,&nbsp;Sophie Robinson,&nbsp;Tristan Snowsill","doi":"10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":"4 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.\",\"authors\":\"Edward Griffin,&nbsp;Chris Hyde,&nbsp;Linda Long,&nbsp;Jo Varley-Campbell,&nbsp;Helen Coelho,&nbsp;Sophie Robinson,&nbsp;Tristan Snowsill\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-020-00087-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

背景:一项对肺癌经济评估的系统综述发现,没有基于疾病自然史的英国经济模型。我们首先试图为人口筛查开发一种新的自然历史模型,然后试图探索多种替代潜在方案的成本效益。方法:在MS Excel®中构建个体患者模型(ENaBL),并根据美国国家肺筛查试验的数据进行校准。费用来自英国肺癌筛查试验,并采取了NHS和PSS的观点。模拟对象是年龄在55岁到80岁之间的当前或曾经的吸烟者,因此与一般人群相比,他们患肺癌的风险更高。亚组通过进一步限制年龄和患者自我问卷预测的肺癌风险来定义。方案设计是单次、三次、一年一次和两年一次的LDCT屏幕安排,从而审查数量和间隔长度。48种不同的筛查策略与目前没有筛查的做法进行了比较。主要结局是策略的增量成本-效果(获得的每个质量质量的额外成本)。结果:预测LDCT筛查可提高诊断时的分期分布,降低肺癌死亡率,与未筛查相比,根据筛查频率的不同,死亡率降低幅度在4.2 - 7.7%之间。总体医疗成本预计将增加;早期发现所节省的治疗费用被过度诊断的费用所抵消。针对预测肺癌风险≥3%的55-75岁或60-75岁人群的单筛筛查方案在每个QALY阈值为30,000英镑时可能具有成本效益(每个QALY获得的ICERs分别为28,784英镑和28,169英镑)。预计年度和两年期筛查方案在任何成本效益阈值上都不具有成本效益。局限性:LDCT的表现不受肺癌类型、分期或位置的影响,也不包括国家吸烟行为筛查计划的影响。结论:肺癌筛查在英国通常使用的每个QALY 20,000英镑的门槛下可能不具有成本效益,但在每个QALY 30,000英镑的更高门槛下可能具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.

Background: A systematic review of economic evaluations for lung cancer identified no economic models of the UK setting based on disease natural history. We first sought to develop a new model of natural history for population screening, then sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of multiple alternative potential programmes.

Methods: An individual patient model (ENaBL) was constructed in MS Excel® and calibrated against data from the US National Lung Screening Trial. Costs were taken from the UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial and took the perspective of the NHS and PSS. Simulants were current or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 years and so at a higher risk of lung cancer relative to the general population. Subgroups were defined by further restricting age and risk of lung cancer as predicted by patient self-questionnaire. Programme designs were single, triple, annual and biennial arrangements of LDCT screens, thereby examining number and interval length. Forty-eight distinct screening strategies were compared to the current practice of no screening. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness of strategies (additional cost per QALY gained).

Results: LDCT screening is predicted to bring forward the stage distribution at diagnosis and reduce lung cancer mortality, with decreases versus no screening ranging from 4.2 to 7.7% depending on screen frequency. Overall healthcare costs are predicted to increase; treatment cost savings from earlier detection are outweighed by the costs of over-diagnosis. Single-screen programmes for people 55-75 or 60-75 years with ≥ 3% predicted lung cancer risk may be cost-effective at the £30,000 per QALY threshold (respective ICERs of £28,784 and £28,169 per QALY gained). Annual and biennial screening programmes were not predicted to be cost-effective at any cost-effectiveness threshold.

Limitations: LDCT performance was unaffected by lung cancer type, stage or location and the impact of a national screening programme of smoking behaviour was not included.

Conclusion: Lung cancer screening may not be cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per QALY commonly used in the UK but may be cost-effective at the higher threshold of £30,000 per QALY.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信