Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Nov 6;371(19):1793-802.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1312547.

Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial

William C Black  1 , Ilana F Gareen, Samir S Soneji, JoRean D Sicks, Emmett B Keeler, Denise R Aberle, Arash Naeim, Timothy R Church, Gerard A Silvestri, Jeremy Gorelick, Constantine Gatsonis; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team
Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial

William C Black et al. N Engl J Med. .

Abstract

Background: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST.

Methods: We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions.

Results: As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,557 to 1,709) and provided an additional 0.0316 life-years per person (95% CI, 0.0154 to 0.0478) and 0.0201 QALYs per person (95% CI, 0.0088 to 0.0314). The corresponding ICERs were $52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and $81,000 per QALY gained (95% CI, 52,000 to 186,000). However, the ICERs varied widely in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: We estimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost $81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10–29. - PubMed
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307:2418–2429. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moyer VA. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:330–338. - PubMed
    1. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 2013 Aug 28; ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html).

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data