You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Economic analysis
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

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2014-110137

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Commentary on: Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, et al.; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med 2014;37:1793–802.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

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.