☆ 4.5 Article

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial

LUNG CANCER (2023)

Related references

Note: Only part of the references are listed.

Article Oncology

USPSTF2013 versus PLCOm2012 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria (International Lung Screening Trial): interim analysis of a prospective cohort study

Martin C. Tammemagi et al.

Summary: This study compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening. The results showed that the PLCOm2012 model is more efficient in selecting individuals for lung cancer screening and provides more accurate predictions of cumulative life expectancy compared to the USPSTF2013 criteria.

LANCET ONCOLOGY (2022)

Add to Collection

Article Critical Care Medicine

Addressing Sex Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility USPSTF vs PLCOm2012 Criteria

Mary M. Pasquinelli et al.

Summary: This study analyzed 883 lung cancer cases and compared the eligibility criteria of the USPSTF lung screening guidelines based on age and smoking history with the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model in terms of screening sensitivity and sex disparities. The results showed that the USPSTF 2021 criteria had higher sensitivity, but sex disparities in eligibility still existed. Adding the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model improved sensitivity and attenuated sex disparities.

CHEST (2022)

Add to Collection

Review Oncology

Applying utility values in cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer screening: A review of methods

Preston J. Ngo et al.

Summary: Lung cancer screening with LDCT has been proven to lead to early diagnosis and reduced mortality, but investment decisions rely on cost-effectiveness analyses. This study reviewed 26 cost-effectiveness analyses conducted between 2005 and 2021 and found variations in the application of utility values. Recommendations include justifying the choice of baseline utilities, modeling the impact of false positive scans, and appropriately sourcing and calculating utilities for lung cancer diagnosis.

LUNG CANCER (2022)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Health utilities for participants in a population-based sample who meet eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening

Preston J. Ngo et al.

Summary: This study estimated the utility values of high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening and found that their average health utility values were lower compared to population norms.

LUNG CANCER (2022)

Add to Collection

Article Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems

Organized Lung Cancer Screening Pilot: Informing a Province-Wide Program in Ontario, Canada

Gail E. Darling et al.

Summary: The pilot project in Ontario is the largest in Canada and meets the standards set by the International Agency for Research on Cancer for organized cancer screening. It successfully recruited high-risk individuals, had a high acceptance rate for smoking cessation programs, and showed a high detection rate for early-stage cancers.

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY (2021)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Using Prediction Models to Reduce Persistent Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Draft 2020 USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines

Rebecca Landy et al.

Summary: The draft 2020 USPSTF guidelines increased eligibility for lung cancer screening among minorities and Whites by similar proportions compared to the 2013 guidelines. However, the relative disparity in gainable life-years from screening between eligible Whites and minorities actually increased with the 2020 guidelines. Using the LYFS-CT model could help reduce disparities in screening eligibility by identifying high-benefit individuals regardless of race and ethnicity.

JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (2021)

Add to Collection

Review Medicine, General & Internal

Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Alex H. Krist et al.

Summary: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and leading cause of cancer death in the US, with smoking and increasing age being the primary risk factors. Annual screening with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for adults aged 50 to 80 years with a 20 pack-year smoking history.

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2021)

Add to Collection

Review Medicine, General & Internal

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Rafael Meza et al.

Summary: The study modeled the benefits and harms of LDCT screening for lung cancer, finding that starting at age 50 or 55 with a smoking history of 20 pack-years or more had more benefits compared to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations, but also resulted in more false-positive results, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths.

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2021)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Comparative performance of lung cancer risk models to define lung screening eligibility in the United Kingdom

Hilary A. Robbins et al.

Summary: In UK cohorts, the ability of risk prediction models to classify future lung cancer cases as eligible for screening was best for LCDRAT/LCRAT, very good for PLCOm2012, and lowest for LLPv2. This highlights the importance of validating prediction tools in specific countries.

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER (2021)

Add to Collection

Article Respiratory System

Analysis of lung cancer risk model (PLCOM2012and LLPv2) performance in a community-based lung cancer screening programme

Mikey B. Lebrett et al.

THORAX (2020)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Risk Prediction Model Versus United States Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria: Reducing Race Disparities

Mary M. Pasquinelli et al.

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY (2020)

Add to Collection

Article Respiratory System

Protocol and Rationale for the International Lung Screening Trial

Kuan Pin Lim et al.

ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY (2020)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy

U. Pastorino et al.

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY (2019)

Add to Collection

Article Medicine, General & Internal

Cost of screening for lung cancer in Australia

Henry M. Marshall et al.

INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL (2019)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Evaluation of USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Among African American Adult Smokers

Melinda C. Aldrich et al.

JAMA ONCOLOGY (2019)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Valuing preferences for treating screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ

Hannah L. Bromley et al.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER (2019)

Add to Collection

Article Public, Environmental & Occupational Health

Potential Racial Disparities Using Current Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines

Srinadh Annangi et al.

JOURNAL OF RACIAL AND ETHNIC HEALTH DISPARITIES (2019)

Add to Collection

Article Medicine, General & Internal

Implications of Nine Risk Prediction Models for Selecting Ever-Smokers for Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening

Hormuzd A. Katki et al.

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (2018)

Add to Collection

Review Economics

Discounting in Economic Evaluations

Arthur E. Attema et al.

PHARMACOECONOMICS (2018)

Add to Collection

Review Public, Environmental & Occupational Health

Participation in lung cancer screening programs: are there gender and social differences? A systematic review

Stefanie Schutte et al.

PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS (2018)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency

Sonya Cressman et al.

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY (2017)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Participant selection for lung cancer screening by risk modelling (the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer [PanCan] study): a single-arm, prospective study

Martin C. Tammemagi et al.

LANCET ONCOLOGY (2017)

Add to Collection

Article Respiratory System

UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening

J. K. Field et al.

THORAX (2016)

Add to Collection

Article Health Care Sciences & Services

Why sex and gender matter in implementation research

Cara Tannenbaum et al.

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (2016)

Add to Collection

Article Public, Environmental & Occupational Health

Cost-effectiveness of the next generation nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine in the context of primary human papillomavirus screening in Australia: a comparative modelling analysis

Kate T. Simms et al.

LANCET PUBLIC HEALTH (2016)

Add to Collection

Article Health Care Sciences & Services

Catalog and Comparison of Societal Preferences (Utilities) for Lung Cancer Health States: Results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Study

Angela C. Tramontano et al.

MEDICAL DECISION MAKING (2015)

Add to Collection

Article Economics

DISTRIBUTIONAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF HEALTH CARE PROGRAMMES - A METHODOLOGICAL CASE STUDY OF THE UK BOWEL CANCER SCREENING PROGRAMME

Miqdad Asaria et al.

HEALTH ECONOMICS (2015)

Add to Collection

Article Medicine, General & Internal

Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Virginia A. Moyer

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (2014)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Resource Utilization and Costs during the Initial Years of Lung Cancer Screening with Computed Tomography in Canada

Sonya Cressman et al.

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY (2014)

Add to Collection

Review Medicine, General & Internal

Socioeconomic Inequalities in Lung Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lynne F. Forrest et al.

PLOS MEDICINE (2013)

Add to Collection

Article Medicine, General & Internal

Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening

Denise R. Aberle et al.

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (2011)

Add to Collection

Article Oncology

Derivation of Utility Values from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 Questionnaire Values in Lung Cancer

Raymond W. Jang et al.

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY (2010)

Add to Collection

© Peeref 2019-2024. All rights reserved.