ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2008
Could CT screening for lung cancer ever be cost effective in the United Kingdom?
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: insights from risk stratification, guidelines, and emerging technologies-a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Pooled it
- EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review Assessing Strategy Comparison and Risk Stratification.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Considering research waste in economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Review
- Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program.Portuguese journal of public health · 2024Review
- Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2021Review
- Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography: a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative programmes in the UK using a newly developed natural history-based economic model.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2020Article
- Secondary prevention at 360°: the important role of diagnostic imaging.La Radiologia medica · 2015Article
- Resource utilization and costs during the initial years of lung cancer screening with computed tomography in Canada.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2014Article
- Overwhelming support among urban Irish COPD patients for lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan.Lung · 2012Article
- Article
- Cost of a 5-year lung cancer survivor: symptomatic tumour identification vs proactive computed tomography screening.British journal of cancer · 2009Article
- Lung cancer screening: the way forward.British journal of cancer · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe absence of trial evidence makes it impossible to determine whether or not mass screening for lung cancer would be cost effective and, indeed, whether a clinical trial to investigate the problem would be justified. Attempts have been made to resolve this issue by modelling, although the complex models developed to date have required more real-world data than are currently available. Being founded on unsubstantiated assumptions, they have produced estimates with wide confidence intervals and of uncertain relevance to the United Kingdom.
methodI develop a simple, deterministic, model of a screening regimen potentially applicable to the UK. The model includes only a limited number of parameters, for the majority of which, values have already been established in non-trial settings. The component costs of screening are derived from government guidance and from published audits, whilst the values for test parameters are derived from clinical studies. The expected health gains as a result of screening are calculated by combining published survival data for screened and unscreened cohorts with data from Life Tables. When a degree of uncertainty over a parameter value exists, I use a conservative estimate, i.e. one likely to make screening appear less, rather than more, cost effective.
resultsThe incremental cost effectiveness ratio of a single screen amongst a high-risk male population is calculated to be around pound14,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The average cost of this screening regimen per person screened is around pound200. It is possible that, when obtained experimentally in any future trial, parameter values will be found to differ from those previously obtained in non-trial settings. On the basis both of differing assumptions about evaluation conventions and of reasoned speculations as to how test parameters and costs might behave under screening, the model generates cost effectiveness ratios as high as around pound20,000 and as low as around pound7,000.
conclusionIt is evident that eventually being able to identify a cost effective regimen of CT screening for lung cancer in the UK is by no means an unreasonable expectation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.