ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2018
Risk-Targeted Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 7 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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 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
- An umbrella review of systematic evidence on the Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal.Cancer medicine · 2021Pooled it
- A comparative analysis of heterogeneity in lung cancer screening effectiveness in two randomised controlled trials.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Association of Inclusion of More Black Individuals in Lung Cancer Screening With Reduced Mortality.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Moving From Individualized Risk-Based Prevention to Benefit-Based Prevention: Estimating Individualized Life-Years Gained From Prevention Services as a Basis for Eligibility.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Considering research waste in economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Review
- The ethics of multi-cancer screening.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of Population Cancer Risk on the Cost-effectiveness of Multicancer Early Detection Testing in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening in smokers and nonsmokers in China.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Individual- and Group-Level Disparities Between Racial and Ethnic Groups in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Recruitment Strategies for Lung Cancer Screening: An Umbrella Review Protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Review
- Lung cancer screening in Brazil: recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, Brazilian Thoracic Association, and Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024Review
- Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Targeting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening to persons at highest risk for lung cancer mortality has been suggested to improve screening efficiency. Objective: To quantify the value of risk-targeted selection for lung cancer screening compared with National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a multistate prediction model. Data Sources: NLST. Target Population: Current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Risk-targeted versus NLST-based screening. Outcome Measures: Incremental 7-year mortality, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of screening with LDCT versus chest radiography at each decile of lung cancer mortality risk. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Participants at greater risk for lung cancer mortality were older and had more comorbid conditions and higher screening-related costs. The incremental lung cancer mortality benefits during the first 7 years ranged from 1.2 to 9.5 lung cancer deaths prevented per 10 000 person-years for the lowest to highest risk deciles, respectively (extreme decile ratio, 7.9). The gradient of benefits across risk groups, however, was attenuated in terms of life-years (extreme decile ratio, 3.6) and QALYs (extreme decile ratio, 2.4). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were similar across risk deciles ($75 000 per QALY in the lowest risk decile to $53 000 per QALY in the highest risk decile). Payers willing to pay $100 000 per QALY would pay for LDCT screening for all decile groups. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Alternative assumptions did not substantially alter our findings. Limitation: Our model did not account for all correlated differences between lung cancer mortality risk and quality of life. Conclusions: Although risk targeting may improve screening efficiency in terms of early lung cancer mortality per person screened, the gains in efficiency are attenuated and modest in terms of life-years, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health (U01NS086294).
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.