JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jul 1;8(7):e2523044. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.23044.
ABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual computed tomographic (CT) screening for individuals aged 50 to 80 years at high risk of lung cancer. Other countries are issuing similar recommendations, with some opting for biennial screening to reduce the burden of screening. However, it is unknown whether benefits of annual screening can be preserved when adapting the interval to age, sex, and smoking history.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health outcomes and costs of adaptive lung cancer screening intervals relative to annual screening.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation used comparative modeling methods with 3 models: 2 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network models and the OncoSim model from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Screening of the US 1965 birth cohort with adaptive intervals was evaluated according to age, sex, and smoking exposure. Simulated outcomes are recorded from 2005 to 2065 for subpopulations of 200 000 individuals with smoking history of 10 to less than 20, 20 to less than 30, and 30 or greater pack-years (PY) for each sex. This evaluation was conducted between September 19, 2023, to December 1, 2024.
EXPOSURE: Low-dose regular CT screening among those eligible per USPSTF 2021 recommendations.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Strategy effectiveness was evaluated as lung cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained relative to annual screening. Screening burden is measured by the number of CT screens. To determine cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results- and Medicare-derived costs of treatment were calculated, as well as CT and follow-up examination costs. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000/QALY for cost-effectiveness was assumed.
RESULTS: Biennial screening at 50 to 60 years of age, followed by annual screening, reduced CT requirements while preserving most benefits. This strategy preserved 95.9% (intermodel range, 93.5%-97.5%) of lung cancer deaths prevented, compared with annual screening, with 20.6% (intermodel range, 19.3%-21.9%) fewer screens. Annual screening from 50 to 80 years of age was not cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $100 000/QALY. Cost-effective strategies varied by risk group, but all cost-effective strategies started with biennial screening and moved to annual screening at 60 years of age or a PY threshold of 30 to 40 was reached.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this economic evaluation of lung cancer screening, biennial screening for participants younger than 60 years and those with less than 30 PY of smoking exposure maintained screening benefits relative to annual screening. Resource-constricted screening programs may consider adaptive intervals.
PMID:40705331 | DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.23044
