IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model

Author

Listed:
  • Steven D Criss
  • Deirdre F Sheehan
  • Lauren Palazzo
  • Chung Yin Kong

Abstract

Background: Previous simulation studies estimating the impacts of lung cancer screening have ignored the changes in smoking prevalence over time in the United States. Our primary rationale was to perform, to our knowledge, the first simulation study that estimates the health outcomes of lung cancer screening with explicit modeling of smoking trends for the whole US population. Methods/Findings: Utilizing a well-validated microsimulation model, we estimated the benefits and harms of an annual low-dose computed tomography screening scenario with a realistic screening adherence rate versus a no-screening scenario for the US population from 2016–2030. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eligibility criteria were applied: age 55–77 years at time of screening, history of at least 30 pack-years of smoking, and current smoker or former smoker with fewer than 15 years since quitting. In the screened population, cumulative mortality reduction was projected to reach 16.98% (95% CI 16.90%–17.07%). Cumulative mortality reduction was estimated to be 3.52% (95% CI 3.50%–3.53%) for the overall study population, with annual mortality reduction peaking at 4.38% (95% CI 4.36%–4.41%) in 2021 and falling to 3.53% (95% CI 3.50%–3.56%) by 2030. Lung cancer screening would save a projected 148,484 life-years (95% CI 147,429–149,540) across the total population through 2030. There were estimated to be 9,054 (95% CI 9,011–9,098) overdiagnosed cases among the 252,429 (95% CI 251,208–253,649) screen-detected lung cancer diagnoses, yielding an overdiagnosis rate of 3.59%. The limitations of our study are that we do not explicitly model race or socioeconomic status and our model was calibrated to data from studies performed in academic centers, both of which may impact the generalizability of our results. We also exclusively model the effects of the CMS guidelines for lung cancer screening and not any other screening strategies. Conclusions: The mortality reduction and life-years gained estimated by this study are lower than those of single birth cohort studies. Single cohort studies neglect the changing dynamics of smoking behavior across generations, whereas this study reflects the trend of decreasing smoking prevalence since the 1960s. Maximum benefit could be derived from lung cancer screening through 2021; in later years, mortality reduction due to screening will decline. If a comprehensive screening program is not implemented in the near future, the opportunity to achieve these benefits will have passed. Chung Yin Kong and colleagues model the health outcomes of lung cancer screening in the US and account for reduced levels of smoking. The benefits of screening and mortality reduction will start to decline in 5 years because of reduced smoking.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Steven D Criss & Deirdre F Sheehan & Lauren Palazzo & Chung Yin Kong, 2018. "Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002506
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002506
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002506&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002506?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002506. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.