Article Text

PDF
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Lung cancer CT screening is cost-effective but implementation matters
  1. Bernardo Goulart
  1. University of Washington, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research (HICOR), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
  1. Correspondence to : Dr Bernardo Goulart, University of Washington, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research (HICOR), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Po Box 19024, Seattle, WA 98109, USA; bgoulart{at}fhcrc.org

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Commentary on: OpenUrl

Context

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) revealed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality from three annual low-dose CT screening scans compared with chest radiographs in high-risk individuals.1 Since up to 10 million individuals in the USA may qualify for annual CT screening, policymakers have legitimately questioned whether the benefits of lung cancer screening justify the potential high costs of large-scale screening implementation. To assess the value of CT screening, Black et al conducted a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis using the NLST data.

Methods

This trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis compared life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and lifetime costs for three strategies: (1) annual CT screening for 3 years; (2) annual chest X-ray screening for 3 years and (3) no screening. …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.