Model-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of Combined Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Cardiovascular Disease.

INTRODUCTION

The conditional cost-effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer (LC) screening has been reported. Extending LC screening to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), together with Big-3, could increase health benefits at marginal costs. This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of Big-3 screening compared with no screening and LC screening in The Netherlands.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was built to reflect the care pathway, using individual-level data from the National Lung Screening Trial individual-level data, and aggregated data from the literature. The model includes a simulation of the detection of the Big-3 diseases through screening and standard of care. The model also simulated tumor growth and the effects of smoking cessation and treatment. Hypothetical (former) smokers (aged 55-74 y) were simulated according to the National Lung Screening Trial criteria. Individuals with screening-detected diseases receiving (preventative) treatment experience a reduced risk of events and increased survival. A Dutch health system perspective and lifetime horizon were adopted.

RESULTS

Simultaneous LC and CVD screening was the most cost-effective, with incremental costs and effects of €1937 and 0.22 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus no screening, and €595 and 0.08 QALYs versus LC screening, respectively. This yielded incremental cost-utility ratios of €8561 per QALY and €7154 per QALY versus no screening and LC screening, respectively. LC plus COPD screening was dominated by LC + CVD screening, which yielded lower health benefits and higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous screening for LC + CVD in a high-risk population offers health benefits at low costs compared with no screening or LC screening alone. Adding COPD screening cannot yet be justified owing to the limited clinical evidence.