Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34673885›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2021

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.

Iakovos Toumazis, Koen de Nijs, Pianpian Cao, Mehrad Bastani, Vidit Munshi, Kevin Ten Haaf, Jihyoun Jeon, G Scott Gazelle, Eric J Feuer, Harry J de Koning and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening in France with low-dose computed tomography.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Iakovos ToumazisDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Koen de NijsErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Pianpian CaoDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Mehrad BastaniFeinstein Institute for Medical Research, Northwell Health, New York, New York.
Vidit MunshiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Kevin Ten HaafErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jihyoun JeonDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
G Scott GazelleDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Eric J FeuerDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Harry J de KoningErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Rafael MezaDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chung Yin KongDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York.
Summer S HanQuantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Sylvia K PlevritisDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Comparative Modeling of Lung Cancer Prevention, Early Detection and Treatment InterventionsU01CA253858 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DE KONING, HARRY J, HOLFORD, THEODORE R · 2020 to 2025
$8.4M
Comparative Modeling of Lung Cancer Prevention and Control PoliciesU01CA199284 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DE KONING, HARRY J, HOLFORD, THEODORE R · 2015 to 2019
$8.4M
Evaluation of genetic, clinical, and environmental risk factors to establish effective screening strategies for second primary lung cancerR37CA226081 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HAN, SUMMER S · 2018 to 2024
$4.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R37 CA226081NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199284NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued its 2021 recommendation on lung cancer screening, which lowered the starting age for screening from 55 to 50 years and the minimum cumulative smoking exposure from 30 to 20 pack-years relative to its 2013 recommendation. Although costs are expected to increase because of the expanded screening eligibility criteria, it is unknown whether the new guidelines for lung cancer screening are cost-effective.

objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening compared with the 2013 recommendation and to explore the cost-effectiveness of 6 alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years and an ending age for screening of 80 years but varied the starting ages for screening (50 or 55 years) and the number of years since smoking cessation (≤15, ≤20, or ≤25). DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA comparative cost-effectiveness analysis using 4 independently developed microsimulation models that shared common inputs to assess the population-level health benefits and costs of the 2021 recommended screening strategy and 6 alternative screening strategies compared with the 2013 recommended screening strategy. The models simulated a 1960 US birth cohort. Simulated individuals entered the study at age 45 years and were followed up until death or age 90 years, corresponding to a study period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2050. EXPOSURES: Low-dose computed tomography in lung cancer screening programs with a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the 2021 vs 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations as well as 6 alternative screening strategies vs the 2013 USPSTF screening strategy. Strategies with a mean ICER lower than $100 000 per QALY were deemed cost-effective.

resultsThe 2021 USPSTF recommendation was estimated to be cost-effective compared with the 2013 recommendation, with a mean ICER of $72 564 (range across 4 models, $59 493-$85 837) per QALY gained. The 2021 recommendation was not cost-effective compared with 6 alternative strategies that used the 20 pack-year criterion. Strategies associated with the most cost-effectiveness included those that expanded screening eligibility to include a greater number of former smokers who had not smoked for a longer duration (ie, ≤20 years and ≤25 years since smoking cessation vs ≤15 years since smoking cessation). In particular, the strategy that screened former smokers who quit within the past 25 years and began screening at age 55 years was associated with screening coverage closest to that of the 2021 USPSTF recommendation yet yielded greater cost-effectiveness, with a mean ICER of $66 533 (range across 4 models, $55 693-$80 539). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation found that the 2021 USPSTF recommendation for lung cancer screening was cost-effective; however, alternative screening strategies that maintained a minimum cumulative smoking exposure of 20 pack-years but included individuals who quit smoking within the past 25 years may be more cost-effective and warrant further evaluation.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsSmoking CessationAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID34673885
PMCPMC8532037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.