SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2026
Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionClinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of early detection of lung cancer (LC); however, the implementation of national LC screening programs remains under consideration. Economic evaluations provide evidence-based insights to support informed policy decisions.
objectivesThis systematic review aims to comprehensively synthesize the health economic evidence on LC screening and examine the methodological challenges.
methodsWe searched six databases from inception to July 31, 2025. Articles were included if evaluating LC screening using a full economic evaluation and/or budget impact analysis (BIA). The Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation (CHEQUE) tool was used for quality assessment of full economic evaluations. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines were modified as a quality checklist for BIA studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize the included studies.
resultsNinety-five articles were identified, representing 93 full economic evaluations and nine BIAs. Seventy-nine full economic evaluations supported the cost-effectiveness of LC screening, while five indicated it was not cost-effective. Seventy studies evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening compared with no screening. Twelve studies considered emerging technologies either as standalone screening modalities or as adjuncts to LDCT screening, including artificial intelligence, genomics, and biomarkers. All BIAs assessed an LDCT-based screening program. Eight studies found that it would increase the budget, while one reported the opposite. All included studies demonstrated substantial methodological variation, including differences in the definition of eligible populations, modeling approaches, assumed uptake rates, cost components, sources of utility values, and equity consideration.
conclusionOur review suggests that LDCT screening is generally cost-effective in high-risk populations, although implementing LC screening programs may entail a substantial budgetary impact. Emerging technologies, novel therapies, and combined screening have the potential to improve screening efficiency. Future economic evaluations are needed to assess these advances, while addressing existing methodological challenges to improve alignment between evidence. This review provides up-to-date economic evidence on LC screening and offers policymakers a clearer understanding of its financial implications.
Identifiers
42487098What 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.