ArticlePloS one2013
A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 8 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
100 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 247 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled 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
- Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Pooled 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
- Evaluating Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer: When Is a Biomarker Ready for Clinical Use? An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Guideline
- Strategies to deliver smoking cessation interventions during targeted lung health screening - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Chronic respiratory diseasePooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Tobacco Treatments From the Screen ASSIST Lung Cancer Screening Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Exploring the predictors and barriers to accepting smoking cessation support within a targeted lung health check setting.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Trial
- Predictors of Cessation Readiness among Cigarette Smokers Presenting for Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening in Community Settings (WF-20817CD).Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Trial
- Medico-economic impact of thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy in lung cancer: multicentre randomised controlled trial (Lungsco01).BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- A Randomized Trial of Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Trial
- Predictors of attrition in a smoking cessation trial conducted in the lung cancer screening setting.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Preliminary evaluation of a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention in the lung cancer screening setting: A randomized clinical trial.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2017Trial
- The Relations Between False Positive and Negative Screens and Smoking Cessation and Relapse in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for Public Health.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2016Trial
- Results of the national lung cancer screening trial: where are we now?Thoracic surgery clinics · 2015Trial
40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA 2011 report from the National Lung Screening Trial indicates that three annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings for lung cancer reduced lung cancer mortality by 20% compared to chest X-ray among older individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Discussion has shifted from clinical proof to financial feasibility. The goal of this study was to determine whether LDCT screening for lung cancer in a commercially-insured population (aged 50-64) at high risk for lung cancer is cost-effective and to quantify the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions in a lung cancer screening program. METHODS AND
findingsThe current study builds upon a previous simulation model to estimate the cost-utility of annual, repeated LDCT screenings over 15 years in a high risk hypothetical cohort of 18 million adults between age 50 and 64 with 30+ pack-years of smoking history. In the base case, the lung cancer screening intervention cost $27.8 billion over 15 years and yielded 985,284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for a cost-utility ratio of $28,240 per QALY gained. Adding smoking cessation to these annual screenings resulted in increases in both the costs and QALYs saved, reflected in cost-utility ratios ranging from $16,198 per QALY gained to $23,185 per QALY gained. Annual LDCT lung cancer screening in this high risk population remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsThe findings of this study indicate that repeat annual lung cancer screening in a high risk cohort of adults aged 50-64 is highly cost-effective. Offering smoking cessation interventions with the annual screening program improved the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening between 20% and 45%. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this study were in line with other accepted cancer screening interventions and support inclusion of annual LDCT screening for lung cancer in a high risk population in clinical recommendations.
Indexed as
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.