ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2021
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and a Diagnostic Biomarker.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Price Variation in Economic Analyses for Cancer Screenings: A Rapid Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Budget Impact of the LungFlag™ Predictive Risk Model for Lung Cancer Screening.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- T-cell Receptor Profiling of Blood to Detect Lung Cancer.Cancer immunology research · 2025Article
- The present and future of lung cancer screening: latest evidence.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Economic Value of Bronchoscopy Technologies that Improves Sensitivity for Malignancy for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024Article
- Article
- Emerging Strategies in Lung Cancer Screening: Blood and Beyond.Clinical chemistry · 2024Review
- Systematic Review of Lung Cancer Screening: Advancements and Strategies for Implementation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Scores, Biomarkers and IT Tools in Lung Cancer Screening-Can an Integrated Approach Overcome Current Challenges?Cancers · 2023Review
- Chest CT for Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Considerations of biomarker application for cancer continuum in the era of precision medicine.Current epidemiology reports · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Low-Dose Computed Tomography With a Plasma-Based Biomarker for Lung Cancer Screening in China.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Biomarker-Based Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: Implementation Considerations.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Proactive Recruitment Strategy for Patient Identification for Lung Cancer Screening.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The Lung Computed Tomography Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) reduces the false-positive rate of lung cancer screening but introduces prolonged periods of uncertainty for indeterminate findings. We assess the cost-effectiveness of a screening program that assesses indeterminate findings earlier via a hypothetical diagnostic biomarker introduced in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines. Methods: We evaluated the performance of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on lung cancer screening with and without a hypothetical noninvasive diagnostic biomarker using a validated microsimulation model. The diagnostic biomarker assesses the malignancy of indeterminate nodules, replacing Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, and is characterized by a varying sensitivity profile that depends on nodules' size, specificity, and cost. We tested the robustness of our findings through univariate sensitivity analyses. Results: A lung cancer screening program per the USPSTF guidelines that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker with at least medium sensitivity profile and 90% specificity, that costs $250 or less, is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio lower than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year, and improves lung cancer-specific mortality reduction while requiring fewer screening exams than the USPSTF guidelines with Lung-RADS. A screening program with a biomarker costing $750 or more is not cost-effective. The health benefits accrued and costs associated with the screening program are sensitive to the disutility of indeterminate findings and specificity of the biomarker, respectively. Conclusions: Lung cancer screening that incorporates a diagnostic biomarker, in place of Lung-RADS 3 and 4A guidelines, could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program and warrants further investigation.
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.