Lung Cancer Screening Based on Personal Risk Is Cost-Effective

Risk model-based lung cancer screening strategy more cost-effective than 2021 USPSTF recommendations

Few American Adults Are Being Screened for Lung Cancer, New Report Finds
Adobe Stock

TUESDAY, Feb. 7, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- Lung cancer screening strategies based on personal risk are more cost effective than the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations, according to a study published online Feb. 7 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Iakovos Toumazis, Ph.D., from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues examined and compared the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening strategies versus the USPSTF recommendation in a modeling analysis. The risk model-based strategy started screening at age 50 or 55 years and stopped screening at age 80 years, with six-year risk thresholds of 0.5 to 2.2 percent based on the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial modified 2012 model.

The researchers found that the risk model-based screening strategies were more cost-effective than the USPSTF recommendation and comprised the cost-effectiveness efficacy frontier. Strategies with a six-year risk threshold of 1.2 percent or greater were cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <$100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The ICER was $94,659 for the strategy with a 1.2 percent risk threshold, which yielded more QALYs for less cost than the USPSTF recommendation, with a similar level of screening coverage (21.7 versus 22.6 percent for the risk model-based strategy and the USPSTF recommendation, respectively).

"Lung cancer screening strategies that select persons based on their personal lung cancer risk are robustly more cost-effective than the 2021 USPSTF recommendations," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Editorial (subscription or payment may be required)

Elana Gotkine

Elana Gotkine

Medically reviewed by Mark Arredondo, M.D.

Published on February 07, 2023

Read this Next
About UsOur ProductsCustom SolutionsHow it’s SoldOur ResultsDeliveryContact UsBlogPrivacy PolicyFAQ