ArticleBMC medicine2025
Cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening in smokers and nonsmokers in China.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChina bears the largest global burden of lung cancer, with a striking 40% of cases occurring in individuals who have never smoked. While the mortality-reducing benefits of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening are established, the quest for an optimal screening strategy continues, considering the potential adverse effects of LDCT. The Chinese NCC-LCm2021 model was developed based on a nationwide population to identify at-risk individuals among smokers and nonsmokers. However, the cost-effectiveness of this model has yet to be determined.
methodsThe cost-effectiveness analysis simulates a Chinese birth cohort using a calibrated Markov model based on individual data from a prospective cohort of the Guangzhou Lung Cancer Screening Program. Health utility was extracted from the literature. Cost parameters were obtained from the price of basic medical services in public medical institutions. Our analysis evaluated 236 distinct screening strategies, varying by screening initiation age, risk thresholds, and smoking status. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsFor smokers, four strategies on the efficiency frontier yielded incremental QALYs ranging from 0.011 to 0.039 compared to no screening, with ICERs ranging from $21,874 to $55,038 when compared to the previous efficient strategies. The optimal strategy was annual screening of smokers aged 45 years and older with a 3-year risk of lung cancer incidence of 0.55%, offering the largest gain in QALYs at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,224 (three times GDP per capita). This optimal strategy dominated the 2023 Chinese guideline-recommended strategy. For nonsmokers, the strategies on the efficiency frontier yielded incremental QALYs ranging from 0.006 to 0.041 compared to no screening, with ICERs ranging from $26,517 to $37,994 when compared to the previous efficient strategies. Correspondingly, the optimal strategy is annual screening of nonsmokers aged 45 years and older with a 3-year risk of lung cancer incidence of 0.20%.
conclusionsThis economic evaluation found that lung cancer screening strategies based on the Chinese NCC-LC
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.