Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of early detection of lung cancer (LC); however, the implementation of national LC screening programs remains under consideration. Economic evaluations provide evidence-based insights to support informed policy decisions.</p> Objectives <p>This systematic review aims to comprehensively synthesize the health economic evidence on LC screening and examine the methodological challenges.</p> Methods <p>We searched six databases from inception to July 31, 2025. Articles were included if evaluating LC screening using a full economic evaluation and/or budget impact analysis (BIA). The Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation (CHEQUE) tool was used for quality assessment of full economic evaluations. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines were modified as a quality checklist for BIA studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize the included studies.</p> Results <p>Ninety-five articles were identified, representing 93 full economic evaluations and nine BIAs. Seventy-nine full economic evaluations supported the cost-effectiveness of LC screening, while five indicated it was not cost-effective. Seventy studies evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening compared with no screening. Twelve studies considered emerging technologies either as standalone screening modalities or as adjuncts to LDCT screening, including artificial intelligence, genomics, and biomarkers. All BIAs assessed an LDCT-based screening program. Eight studies found that it would increase the budget, while one reported the opposite. All included studies demonstrated substantial methodological variation, including differences in the definition of eligible populations, modeling approaches, assumed uptake rates, cost components, sources of utility values, and equity consideration.</p> Conclusion <p>Our review suggests that LDCT screening is generally cost-effective in high-risk populations, although implementing LC screening programs may entail a substantial budgetary impact. Emerging technologies, novel therapies, and combined screening have the potential to improve screening efficiency. Future economic evaluations are needed to assess these advances, while addressing existing methodological challenges to improve alignment between evidence. This review provides up-to-date economic evidence on LC screening and offers policymakers a clearer understanding of its financial implications.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月22日

查看全文
  • Nuo Chen,
  • Siyuan Wang,
  • Jing Bai,
  • Fanny Franchini,
  • Kaung Mon Winn,
  • Jingyi Hu,
  • Jian Wang,
  • Gang Chen

摘要

Introduction

Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of early detection of lung cancer (LC); however, the implementation of national LC screening programs remains under consideration. Economic evaluations provide evidence-based insights to support informed policy decisions.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to comprehensively synthesize the health economic evidence on LC screening and examine the methodological challenges.

Methods

We searched six databases from inception to July 31, 2025. Articles were included if evaluating LC screening using a full economic evaluation and/or budget impact analysis (BIA). The Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation (CHEQUE) tool was used for quality assessment of full economic evaluations. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines were modified as a quality checklist for BIA studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize the included studies.

Results

Ninety-five articles were identified, representing 93 full economic evaluations and nine BIAs. Seventy-nine full economic evaluations supported the cost-effectiveness of LC screening, while five indicated it was not cost-effective. Seventy studies evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening compared with no screening. Twelve studies considered emerging technologies either as standalone screening modalities or as adjuncts to LDCT screening, including artificial intelligence, genomics, and biomarkers. All BIAs assessed an LDCT-based screening program. Eight studies found that it would increase the budget, while one reported the opposite. All included studies demonstrated substantial methodological variation, including differences in the definition of eligible populations, modeling approaches, assumed uptake rates, cost components, sources of utility values, and equity consideration.

Conclusion

Our review suggests that LDCT screening is generally cost-effective in high-risk populations, although implementing LC screening programs may entail a substantial budgetary impact. Emerging technologies, novel therapies, and combined screening have the potential to improve screening efficiency. Future economic evaluations are needed to assess these advances, while addressing existing methodological challenges to improve alignment between evidence. This review provides up-to-date economic evidence on LC screening and offers policymakers a clearer understanding of its financial implications.