Conventional Computed Tomographic Calcium Scoring vs full chest CTCS for lung cancer screening: A cost-effectiveness analysis

5Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Conventional CTCS images the mid/lower chest for coronary artery disease (CAD). Because many CAD patients are also at risk for lung malignancy, CTCS often discovers incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN). CTCS excludes the upper chest, where malignancy is common. Full-chest CTCS (FCT) may be a cost-effective screening tool for IPN. Methods: A decision tree was created to compare a FCT to CTCS in a hypothetical patient cohort with suspected CAD. (Figure) The design compares the effects of missed cancers on CTCS with the cost of working up non-malignant nodules on FCT. The model was informed by results of the National Lung Screening Trial and literature review, including the rate of malignancy among patients receiving CTCS and the rate of malignancy in upper vs lower portions of the lung. The analysis outcomes are Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is generally considered beneficial when

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jiang, B., Linden, P. A., Gupta, A., Jarrett, C., Worrell, S. G., Ho, V. P., … Towe, C. W. (2020). Conventional Computed Tomographic Calcium Scoring vs full chest CTCS for lung cancer screening: A cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-01221-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free