Download Development of a Lung Cancer Natural History Model

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
CT Screening for Lung Cancer
vs. Smoking Cessation:
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Pamela M. McMahon, PhD; Chung Yin Kong, PhD;
Bruce E. Johnson; Milton C. Weinstein, PhD;
Jane C. Weeks, MD, MS; G. Scott Gazelle, MD, MPH, PhD
Department of Radiology & Institute for Technology Assessment
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Key Question

Modeling studies suggest that CT screening may
decrease lung cancer mortality

Several randomized trials will report mortality
endpoints in the next few years

If trials show evidence of benefit from CT
screening, would it be a good value relative
to other cancer control interventions?
Methods

Existing lung cancer simulation model to simulate
6 cohorts of individuals in multiple scenarios

For each scenario, predict total costs and total
quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the cohort



Calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios


costs in 2006 US $
costs & QALYs discounted at 3% annually
ICERs; defined as Δcost/ΔQALY
ICERs compared to benchmark of $100k/QALY
Lung Cancer Policy Model (LCPM)

Two versions – we used single cohort LCPM


population LCPM replicates US trends, 1975-2000
Model synthesizes available data


smoking histories from de-identified US survey data
observational studies, cancer registries (SEER)

Validated (single arm screening study)

Affiliate of the NCI
consortium
http://cisnet.cancer.gov/
Features of the LCPM

Microsimulation of individual life-histories


aggregated to cohort (population) statistics
Underlying natural history model

5 lung cancer cell types and benign nodules

Smokers face increased risks of death from
competing causes (e.g., CVD, COPD, others)

Screening biases and mortality reduction from
screening are predicted

based on model inputs (program characteristics)
Lung Cancer Policy Model
Schematic
General
population
Follow-up
Dead
Diagnosis
& Staging
Treatment
& Survival
Lung Cancer Policy Model
Schematic
Screening
General
population
Follow-up
Dead
Diagnosis
& Staging
Treatment
& Survival
Natural History Model

Risks of lung cancer depend on


accumulated smoking exposure
age, sex and birth cohort

Cancers grow (Gompertz) and can metastasize

Clinical staging, treatment modeled explicitly


can be varied to evaluate management strategies
Unobservable natural history parameters are
estimated through extensive model calibration
SEER
+ LCPM
Year
Incidence per 100,000
Interventions Compared

No intervention

Screening with helical CT

Smoking cessation alone

Combined CT screening/smoking cessation

Interventions modeled as one-time & annual
Inputs Relevant to the
Analysis

Cessation rates



Program characteristics




background annual cessation = 3%
effectiveness (1-year abstinence) = 4% to 30%
eligibility (age, pack-yrs, time since quitting),
adherence
number and frequency of screens, CT performance,
cost
follow-up protocol, +/- radiation risk
Costs


SEER-Medicare, CPT codes, wholesale prices
patient and caregiver time costs
Projected costs and effects –
base case (perfect adherence)
Results:
white males age 50 in 1990
$300 cessation with 16% abstinence at 1 year
Results
ICERs (in $1,000s/QALY)
Summary:
1) Combined interventions provided most benefit to most individuals but
yielded ICERs over $100,000/QALY (vs. cessation alone)
2) CT alone was dominated, regardless of cessation effectiveness
*Scenario shown on previous plot; all in cohorts of males aged 50
Additional Sensitivity Analyses

Including radiation risk for new lung cancers


 ICER for annual CT screening vs. no screening by
14% (70 year old men) to 85% (50 year old women)
Additional influential program characteristics


lower screening adherence increased ICERs
‘stricter’ eligibility for screening reduced ICERs for
annual screening but none were below $100K/QALY
Conclusions

Screening with helical CT costs more but
provides fewer benefits than cessation alone

Combined screening + cessation provides
benefits to more individuals but costs more than
$100,000/QALY (vs. cessation alone)

Results are dependent on model assumptions


model simulates guideline care
analyses are currently limited to whites

data on smoking histories and lung cancer incidence by single year,
which are needed for calibration, were not available for minorities
Acknowledgements


National Cancer Institute

R01 CA97337 + Supp (Gazelle)

R25 CA92203 (Gazelle)

R00 CA126147 (McMahon)
American Cancer Society

117494-RSGHP-09-148-01-CPHPS (Gazelle)

Colleen Bouzan, Angela Tramontano

CISNET lung cancer investigators