ArticleJAMA oncology2021
Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Lung Cancer Screening.
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.
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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- The Role of Price Variation in Economic Analyses for Cancer Screenings: A Rapid Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled 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
- Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions Integrated Into Lung Cancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Lung Cancer Screening in Singapore.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Performance of smoking duration-based lung cancer screening eligibility criteria: a comparative modeling study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- 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) · 2026Article
- Budget Impact of the LungFlag™ Predictive Risk Model for Lung Cancer Screening.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Eligibility and Prognostic Performance of Smoking Duration-Based Versus Pack-Year-Based U.S. National Lung Cancer Screening Criteria Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Stage- and histology-specific sensitivity for the detection of lung cancer of the NELSON screening protocol-A modeling study.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Influence of changing patterns in lung cancer treatment and survival on the cost-effectiveness of CT screening: a modeling study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Patterns of Medical Care Cost by Service Type Associated With Lung Cancer Screening.Medical care · 2025Article
- Computed Tomographic Screening Intervals for Patients at Moderate Risk of Lung Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening in smokers and nonsmokers in China.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Prevalent findings on low-dose CT scan lung cancer screening: a French prospective pilot study.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Combined Breast and Lung Cancer Screening Among Dual-Eligible Women: A Descriptive Study.The Journal of surgical research · 2025Article
- Advances in early detection of non-small cell lung cancer: A comprehensive review.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
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
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.