ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2019
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 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
- Considering research waste in economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Review
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Benchmarking lung cancer screening programmes with adaptive screening frequency against the optimal screening schedules derived from the ENGAGE framework: a comparative microsimulation study.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Risk Stratification in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Screening: Intervention Eligibility, Strategy Choice, and Optimality.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and a Diagnostic Biomarker.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.JAMA oncology · 2021Article
- Lung cancer LDCT screening and mortality reduction - evidence, pitfalls and future perspectives.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2021Review
- Direct reconstruction of anatomical change in low-dose lung nodule surveillance.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021Article
- [Research Progress on Lung Cancer Screening].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2020Review
- Proactive Recruitment Strategy for Patient Identification for Lung Cancer Screening.Annals of family medicineArticle
- An International Consensus on Actions to Improve Lung Cancer Survival: A Modified Delphi Method Among Clinical Experts in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNumerous health policy organizations recommend lung cancer screening, but no consensus exists on the optimal policy. Moreover, the impact of the Lung CT screening reporting and data system guidelines to manage small pulmonary nodules of unknown significance (a.k.a. indeterminate nodules) on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening is not well established.
methodsWe assess the cost-effectiveness of 199 screening strategies that vary in terms of age and smoking eligibility criteria, using a microsimulation model. We simulate lung cancer-related events throughout the lifetime of US-representative current and former smokers. We conduct sensitivity analyses to test key model inputs and assumptions.
resultsThe cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier consists of both annual and biennial screening strategies. Current guidelines are not on the frontier. Assuming 4% disutility associated with indeterminate findings, biennial screening for smokers aged 50-70 years with at least 40 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy using $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold yielding the highest health benefit. Among all health utilities, the cost-effectiveness of screening is most sensitive to changes in the disutility of indeterminate findings. As the disutility of indeterminate findings decreases, screening eligibility criteria become less stringent and eventually annual screening for smokers aged 50-70 years with at least 30 pack-years and less than 10 years since smoking cessation is the cost-effective strategy yielding the highest health benefit.
conclusionsThe disutility associated with indeterminate findings impacts the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. Efforts to quantify and better understand the impact of indeterminate findings on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening are warranted.
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.