Evans William K, Gauvreau Cindy L, Flanagan William M, Memon Saima, Yong Jean Hai Ein, Goffin John R, Fitzgerald Natalie R, Wolfson Michael, Miller Anthony B
Department of Oncology (Evans, Goffin), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Gauvreau, Memon, Yong, Fitzgerald), Toronto, Ont.; Statistics Canada (Flanagan); Faculties of Medicine and Law (Wolfson), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Public Health Sciences (Miller), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
CMAJ Open. 2020 Sep 22;8(3):E585-E592. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20190134. Print 2020 Jul-Sep.
Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness.
Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars.
Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt.
Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.
低剂量计算机断层扫描(CT)筛查可降低高危人群的肺癌死亡率;在筛查中加入戒烟干预措施可能会进一步改善筛查项目的效果。本研究旨在评估在肺癌筛查中加入戒烟干预措施对临床结局、成本及成本效益的影响。
我们使用OncoSim-Lung数学微观模拟模型,比较了在加拿大对肺癌高危人群进行年度低剂量CT肺癌筛查的背景下,戒烟干预措施(尼古丁替代疗法、伐尼克兰及12周咨询)与无戒烟干预的肺癌筛查对预期终生影响。模拟人群为1940年至1974年出生的加拿大人;2020年为符合条件者提供肺癌筛查。在基线情景中,我们假设该干预措施将提供给吸烟者最多10次;每次干预将实现2.5%的永久戒烟率。敏感性分析改变了关键模型输入。我们从卫生系统角度计算了终生视角下的增量成本效益比,每年贴现率为1.5%。成本以2019年加拿大元计。
在肺癌筛查背景下提供戒烟干预措施可能会使额外13%的吸烟者戒烟。每筛查1000名吸烟者,该措施有可能多预防12例肺癌并多挽救200个生命年,每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本为22000加元。结果对戒烟率最为敏感。若每次尝试的永久戒烟率低于1.25%,则该干预措施每获得一个QALY的成本将超过50000加元。
在肺癌筛查中加入戒烟干预措施可能具有成本效益。为优化肺癌筛查的益处,医疗保健提供者应鼓励仍在吸烟的参与者戒烟。