ArticleBMC public health2025
Cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for non-smokers with a first-degree relative history of lung cancer.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Lung Cancer Screening in Singapore.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- LDCT screening for lung cancer in East Asian never-smokers: balancing benefits and overdiagnosis-related harms.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with non-smokers in China accounting for over 40% of cases. Despite the proven efficacy of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in early detection and reduction of lung cancer mortality, the current paradigm of lung cancer screening, heavily focused on smoking status and age, may inadequately address the unique risk factors associated with non-smokers, particularly those with a family history of the disease. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for non-smokers with a first-degree relative (FDR) history of lung cancer, a group at particularly high-risk.
methodsWe developed a state-transition Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 16 screening strategies for a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 non-smoking individuals aged 50 with a FDR history of lung cancer, considering various starting ages (50, 55, 60, 65 years) and intervals (one-off, annual, biennial, triennial). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times China's 2022 per-capita GDP. Sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses and subgroup analysis by sex, were conducted.
resultsCompared to no screening, all strategies except one-off screening at age 50, were cost-effective for both sexes. Biennial LDCT starting at age 55 was found to be most effective, with an ICER of CNY 68,932/QALY for males, and CNY 80,056/QALY for females. This cost-effectiveness probability for this strategy was approximately 90% for both sexes. Sensitivity analyses indicated that annual screening at age 55 was optimal without discounting. For males, biennial at age 60 was optimal if the FDR-related odds ratio for lung cancer incidence was below 1.492. Triennial screening at age 55 was optimal for females at full adherence. Ignoring disutility from false-positive results, annual at age 55 was optimal for both sexes.
conclusionsLDCT screening for non-smokers with a FDR history of lung cancer is cost-effective, especially biennial screening at 55. These findings support the development of more inclusive screening guidelines, which could enhance early detection and reduce mortality rates.
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.