ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024
Targeted lung cancer screening in the age of immunotherapies and targeted therapies - an economic evaluation for Australia.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use and impact of risk-based eligibility models in low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of lung cancer screening eligibility criteria on participants' characteristics and healthcare resources.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Influence of changing patterns in lung cancer treatment and survival on the cost-effectiveness of CT screening: a modeling study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Computed Tomographic Screening Intervals for Patients at Moderate Risk of Lung Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- 'Every Touch Point Is an Opportunity': Tobacco Control Experts' Views on How to Implement Smoking Cessation Interventions Within an Australian Lung Cancer Screening Program.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The cost-effectiveness of different lung cancer screening strategies has been evaluated from an Australian public health system perspective using static models. In addition, the impact of novel therapies, including immunotherapies and targeted therapies, on the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening has not yet been evaluated comprehensively. We evaluated the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of a targeted national lung screening program in Australia, accounting for the increasing uptake of novel therapies, which informed the lung cancer screening recommendations of the Australian Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Methods: Australia-specific data on lung cancer epidemiology, smoking behaviour and care costs were used to adapt the MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Lung model. Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of different targeted lung cancer screening scenarios were evaluated for individuals born between 1945 and 1969. The scenarios considered various screening age ranges, intervals and eligibility criteria (minimum accumulated smoking history and PLCOm2012 risk thresholds). Findings: The MSAC-recommended scenario was cost-effective at AUD62,754 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to no screening. This scenario biennially screens current and former smokers (quit ≤10 years ago) who smoked ≥30 pack-years between ages 50 and 70, preventing 62 lung cancer deaths per 100,000 and yielding 8.4 quality-adjusted life-years per prevented lung cancer death. Using novel therapies reduced the incremental costs of screening compared to no-screening by 14.8% but yielded 11.3% fewer incremental quality-adjusted life-years compared to traditional anti-cancer therapies, due to the improved survival yielded by novel therapies. Overall, the cost-effectiveness of screening was better when costs and effects of novel therapies were applied (AUD62,754 vs AUD65,340 per quality-adjusted life-year gained; 4% difference). Interpretation: Targeted lung cancer screening is more cost-effective when costs and effects of novel therapies are applied, although impacts on cost-effectiveness are likely to be marginal. Funding: Cancer Australia.
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.