Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18302756›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2008

Could CT screening for lung cancer ever be cost effective in the United Kingdom?

David K Whynes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program.Portuguese journal of public health · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2014
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Lung cancer screening: the way forward.British journal of cancer · 2008
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David K WhynesProfessor of Health Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. david.whynes@nottingham.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID18302756
PMCPMC2292150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.