Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting: A Simulation Study

Christopher J Cadham, Pianpian Cao, Jinani Jayasekera, Kathryn L Taylor, David T Levy, Jihyoun Jeon, Elena B Elkin, Kristie L Foley, Anne Joseph, Chung Yin Kong, Jennifer A Minnix, Nancy A Rigotti, Benjamin A Toll, Steven B Zeliadt, Rafael Meza, Jeanne Mandelblatt, CISNET-SCALE Collaboration, Christopher J Cadham, Pianpian Cao, Jinani Jayasekera, Kathryn L Taylor, David T Levy, Jihyoun Jeon, Rafael Meza, Jeanne Mandelblatt, Christopher J Cadham, Pianpian Cao, Jinani Jayasekera, Kathryn L Taylor, David T Levy, Jihyoun Jeon, Elena B Elkin, Kristie L Foley, Anne Joseph, Chung Yin Kong, Jennifer A Minnix, Nancy A Rigotti, Benjamin A Toll, Steven B Zeliadt, Rafael Meza, Jeanne Mandelblatt, CISNET-SCALE Collaboration, Christopher J Cadham, Pianpian Cao, Jinani Jayasekera, Kathryn L Taylor, David T Levy, Jihyoun Jeon, Rafael Meza, Jeanne Mandelblatt

Abstract

Background: Guidelines recommend offering cessation interventions to smokers eligible for lung cancer screening, but there is little data comparing specific cessation approaches in this setting. We compared the benefits and costs of different smoking cessation interventions to help screening programs select specific cessation approaches.

Methods: We conducted a societal-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model simulating individuals born in 1960 over their lifetimes. Model inputs were derived from Medicare, national cancer registries, published studies, and micro-costing of cessation interventions. We modeled annual lung cancer screening following 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines plus cessation interventions offered to current smokers at first screen, including pharmacotherapy only or pharmacotherapy with electronic and/or web-based, telephone, individual, or group counseling. Outcomes included lung cancer cases and deaths, life-years saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) saved, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: Compared with screening alone, all cessation interventions decreased cases of and deaths from lung cancer. Compared incrementally, efficient cessation strategies included pharmacotherapy with either web-based cessation ($555 per QALY), telephone counseling ($7562 per QALY), or individual counseling ($35 531 per QALY). Cessation interventions continued to have costs per QALY well below accepted willingness to pay thresholds even with the lowest intervention effects and was more cost-effective in cohorts with higher smoking prevalence.

Conclusion: All smoking cessation interventions delivered with lung cancer screening are likely to provide benefits at reasonable costs. Because the differences between approaches were small, the choice of intervention should be guided by practical concerns such as staff training and availability.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Costs per QALYs gained from adding smoking cessation interventions to lung cancer screening. Strategies are in ascending order of costs: Sc Alone = screening plus no cessation; Sc + Pharm = screening plus pharmacotherapy; Sc + Web = screening plus electronic/web-based plus pharmacotherapy; Sc + Phone = screening plus phone plus pharmacotherapy; Sc + Group = screening plus group counseling plus pharmacotherapy; Sc + Indiv = screening plus individual counseling plus pharmacotherapy. Efficient strategies were those that yielded an increasing cost-to-benefit ratio; all other strategies are dominated. QALY = quality-adjusted life-years.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Effects of 1-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses on costs per QALY of screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy compared with screening alone. The vertical line represents the costs per QALY of the base case screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy compared with screening alone with screening coverage set to 15% from column 3, Table 3 ($1019/QALY). The sensitivity analysis from the top down are as follows: ideal case—screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy at the lowest costs ($375) and highest effects (relative risk [RR] = 2.44) compared with screening alone with screening coverage set to 100% in the 1960s birth cohort; 1950s birth cohort—screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy among screen-eligible individuals in the 1950s birth cohort with base case costs and effects and screening coverage set to 15%; best/worst case—screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy at the highest costs ($603) and lowest effects (RR = 1.98) compared with screening alone and at the lowest costs ($375) and highest effects (RR = 2.44) compared with screening alone with screening coverage set to 15% in the 1960s birth cohort; increased screening coverage—screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy with base case costs and effects and screening coverage set to 100% in the 1960s birth cohort; highest and lowest costs—screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy with highest ($603) and lowest costs ($375), base case effects, and screening coverage set to 15% in the 1960s birth cohort; highest and lowest effects—screening plus telephone counseling and pharmacotherapy with highest (RR = 2.44) and lowest (RR = 1.98) effects, base case costs, and screening coverage set to 15% in the 1960s birth cohort. See also Supplementary Table 3, available online. QALY = quality-adjusted life-years.

References

    1. Ma J, Jemal A, Fedewa SA, et al.The American Cancer Society 2035 challenge goal on cancer mortality reduction. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(5):351–362.
    1. Vachani A, Sequist LV, Spira A.. AJRCCM: 100-year anniversary. the shifting landscape for lung cancer: past, present, and future. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(9):1150–1160.
    1. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al.Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503–513.
    1. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al.; National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.
    1. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):330–338.
    1. Jensen TS, Chin J, Ashby L, et al.Decision Memo for Screening for Lung Cancer with Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) (CAG-00439N). Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2015.
    1. Cadham CJ, Jayasekera JC, Advani SM, et al.Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lung Cancer. 2019;135:205–216.
    1. Joseph AM, Rothman AJ, Almirall D, et al.Lung Cancer Screening and Smoking Cessation Clinical Trials. SCALE (Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening) Collaboration. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197(2):172–182.
    1. Rendle KA, Burnett-Hartman AN, Neslund-Dudas C, et al.Evaluating lung cancer screening across diverse healthcare systems: a process model from the lung PROSPR Consortium. Cancer Prev Res. 2020;13(2):129–136.
    1. Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, et al.Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1793–1802.
    1. Criss SD, Cao P, Bastani M, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening in the United States: a comparative modeling study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(11):796.
    1. Raymakers AJN, Mayo J, Lam S, et al.Cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer screening strategies using low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(4):409–418.
    1. Du Y, Sidorenkov G, Heuvelmans MA, et al.Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography in heavy smokers: a microsimulation modelling study. Eur J Cancer. 2020;135:121–129.
    1. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, et al.Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6(11):1841–1848.
    1. Manser R, Dalton A, Carter R, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer. 2005;48(2):171–185.
    1. McMahon PM, Meza R, Plevritis SK, et al.Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99978.
    1. Villanti AC, Jiang Y, Abrams DB, et al.A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71379.
    1. Pyenson BS, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, et al.Offering lung cancer screening to high-risk Medicare beneficiaries saves lives and is cost-effective: an actuarial analysis. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(5):272–282.
    1. Pyenson BS, Sander MS, Jiang Y, et actuarial analysis shows that offering lung cancer screening as an insurance benefit would save lives at relatively low cost. Health Aff. 2012;31(4):770–779.
    1. Cao P, Jeon J, Levy DT, et al.Potential impact of cessation interventions at the point of lung cancer screening on lung cancer and overall mortality in the United States. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15(7):1160–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.02.008.
    1. Evans WK, Gauvreau CL, Flanagan WM, et al.Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model. CMAJ Open. 2020;8(3):e585–e592.
    1. Jeon J, Holford TR, Levy DT, et al.Smoking and lung cancer mortality in the United States from 2015 to 2065: a comparative modeling approach. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(10):684–693.
    1. Caverly TJ, Cao P, Hayward RA, et al.Identifying patients for whom lung cancer screening is preference-sensitive: a microsimulation study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(1):1–9.
    1. Holford TR, Levy DT, McKay LA, et al.Patterns of birth cohort-specific smoking histories, 1965-2009. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(2):e31-7–e37.
    1. Holford TR, Meza R, Warner KE, et al.Tobacco control and the reduction in smoking-related premature deaths in the United States, 1964-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(2):164–171.
    1. Jeon J, Meza R, Krapcho M, et al.Chapter 5: actual and counterfactual smoking prevalence rates in the U.S. population via microsimulation. Risk Anal. 2012;32:S51–S68.
    1. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed.; 2016. . Accessed on 11 March 2018.
    1. Zahnd WE, Eberth JM.. Lung cancer screening utilization: a behavioral risk factor surveillance system analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2019;57(2):250–255.
    1. Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update U.S. Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline executive summary. Respir Care. 2008;53(9):1217–1222.
    1. Drugs for tobacco dependence. JAMA. 2018;320(9):926–927.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; ; 2014.
    1. Hartmann-Boyce J, Chepkin SC, Ye W, et al.Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5(5):Cd000146.
    1. Hughes JR, Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, et al.Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD000031.10.1002/14651858.CD000031.pub4.
    1. Taylor GMJ, Dalili MN, Semwal M, et al.Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9(9):Cd007078.
    1. Matkin W, Ordonez-Mena JM, Hartmann-Boyce J.. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;5(5):Cd002850.
    1. Lancaster T, Stead LF.. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3(3):Cd001292.
    1. Stead LF, Carroll AJ, Lancaster T.. Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3(3):Cd001007.
    1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Physician fee schedule look-up tool. . Accessed on May 15, 2019.
    1. Sheehan DF, Criss SD, Chen Y, et al.Lung cancer costs by treatment strategy and phase of care among patients enrolled in Medicare. Cancer Med. 2019;8(1):94–103.
    1. Hanmer J, Lawrence WF, Anderson JP, et al.Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(4):391–400.
    1. Tramontano AC, Schrag DL, Malin JK, et al.Catalog and comparison of societal preferences (utilities) for lung cancer health states: results from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(3):371–387.
    1. van den Hout WB, Kramer GW, Noordijk EM, et al.Cost-utility analysis of short- versus long-course palliative radiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(24):1786–1794.
    1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States. . Accessed on May 13, 2019.
    1. Micromedex RedBook. Micromedex Solutions. Greenwood Village, CO: IBM Watson Health, 2019. Accessed May 13, 2019.
    1. Internal Revenue Service. IRS issues standard mileage rates for 2019. . Accessed on February 14, 2019. Updated December 14, 2018.
    1. CBRE. 2019 U.S. Real Estate Market Outlook. 2018. . Accessed on June 20, 2019.
    1. Lam O, Broderick B, Toor S. How far Americans live from the closest hospital differs by community type. 2018. . Accessed on February 12, 2019.
    1. National Cancer Institute. SEER Data & Software for Researchers. . Accessed on March 11, 2018.
    1. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Survival Analysis Software (CanSurv). Updated January 31, 2017. . Accessed on March 11, 2018.
    1. Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Black W, et al.Performance of lung-RADS in the national lung screening trial: a retrospective assessment. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(7):485–491.
    1. Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD, et al.Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):920–931.
    1. Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, et al.Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306(17):1865–1873.
    1. Cahill K, Lindson-Hawley N, Thomas KH, et al.Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(5):CD006103. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006103.pub7.
    1. Meza R, ten HK, Kong CY, et al.Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials. Cancer. 2014;120(11):1713–1724.
    1. de Koning HJ, Meza R, Plevritis SK, et al.Benefits and harms of computed tomography lung cancer screening strategies: a comparative modeling study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):311–320.
    1. Rosenberg MA, Feuer EJ, Yu B, et al.Chapter 3: cohort life tables by smoking status, removing lung cancer as a cause of death. Risk Analysis. 2012;32(suppl 1):S25–S38.
    1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Measuring price change in the CPI: medical care. . Accessed on June 3, 2020.
    1. US. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Land-line telephone services in U.S. city average, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted. . Accessed on March 22, 2019.
    1. Prosser LA, Neumann PJ, Sanders D, et al.Reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. In: Neumann PJ, Ganiats TG, Russell LB, et al., eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: Oxford University Press; 2017:343–368.
    1. Fenwick E, Steuten L, Knies S, et al.Value of information analysis for research decisions-an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR value of information analysis emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2020;23(2):139–150.
    1. Hsu HC, Pwu RF.. Too late to quit? Effect of smoking and smoking cessation on morbidity and mortality among the elderly in a longitudinal study. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2004;20(10):484–491.
    1. Tanner NT, Kanodra NM, Gebregziabher M, et al.The association between smoking abstinence and mortality in the national lung screening trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(5):534–541.
    1. Burns DM. Cigarette smoking among the elderly: disease consequences and the benefits of cessation. Am J Health Promot. 2000;14(6):357–361.
    1. Cox JL. Smoking cessation in the elderly patient. Clin Chest Med. 1993;14(3):423–428.
    1. Taylor DH Jr, Hasselblad V, Henley SJ, et al.Benefits of smoking cessation for longevity. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(6):990–996.
    1. Duncan MS, Freiberg MS, Greevy RA Jr, et al.Association of smoking cessation with subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 2019;322(7):642–650.
    1. Cameron D, Ubels J, Norström F.. On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review. Global Health Action. 2018;11(1):1447828–1447828.
    1. Ostroff JS, Copeland A, Borderud SP, et al.Readiness of lung cancer screening sites to deliver smoking cessation treatment: current practices, organizational priority, and perceived barriers. Nictob Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1067–1075.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking Cessation. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2020.
    1. Liebmann EP, Preacher KJ, Richter KP, et al.Identifying pathways to quitting smoking via telemedicine-delivered care. Health Psychol. 2019;38(7):638–647.
    1. Keesara S, Jonas A, Schulman K.. Covid-19 and health care’s digital revolution. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(23):e82.
    1. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Recommendation statement: lung cancer screening. Updated July 7, 2020. . Accessed July 19, 2020.
    1. Taylor KL, Cox LS, Zincke N, et al.Lung cancer screening as a teachable moment for smoking cessation. Lung Cancer. 2007;56(1):125–134.
    1. Gomez MM, LoBiondo-Wood G.. Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT: its effect on smoking behavior. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2013;4(6):405–414.
    1. Styn MA, Land SR, Perkins KA, et al.Smoking behavior 1 year after computed tomography screening for lung cancer: effect of physician referral for abnormal CT findings. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(12):3484–3489.
    1. Tammemägi MC, Berg CD, Riley TL, et al.Impact of lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(6):dju084.
    1. Townsend CO, Clark MM, Jett JR, et al.Relation between smoking cessation and receiving results from three annual spiral chest computed tomography scans for lung carcinoma screening. Cancer. 2005;103(10):2154–2162.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する