Abstract
Objectives
Recent studies with lung MRI (MRI) have shown high sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for lung nodule detection and characterization relative to low-dose CT (LDCT). Using this background data, we sought to compare the potential screening performance of MRI vs. LDCT using a Markov model of lung cancer screening.
Methods
We created a Markov cohort model of lung cancer screening which incorporated lung cancer incidence, progression, and mortality based on gender, age, and smoking burden. Sensitivity (Sn) and Sp for LDCT were taken from the MISCAN Lung Microsimulation and Sn/Sp for MRI was estimated from a published substudy of the German Lung Cancer Screening and Intervention Trial. Screening, work-up, and treatment costs were estimated from published data. Screening with MRI and LDCT was simulated for a cohort of male and female smokers (2 packs per day; 36 pack/years of smoking history) starting at age 60. We calculated the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of MRI screening and performed a sensitivity analysis on MRI Sn/Sp and cost.
Results
There was no difference in life expectancy between MRI and LDCT screening (males 13.28 vs. 13.29 life-years; females 14.22 vs. 14.22 life-years). MRI had a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of $258,169 in men and $403,888 in women driven by fewer false-positive screens. On sensitivity analysis, MRI remained cost effective at screening costs < $396 dollars and Sp > 81%.
Conclusions
In this Markov model of lung cancer screening, MRI has a near-equivalent life expectancy benefit and has superior cost-effectiveness relative to LDCT.
Key Points
• In this Markov model of lung cancer screening, there is no difference in mortality between yearly screening with MRI and low-dose CT.
• Compared to low-dose CT, screening with MRI led to a reduction in false-positive studies from 26 to 2.8% in men and 26 to 2.6% in women.
• Due to similar life-expectancy and reduced false-positive rate, we found a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of $258,169 in men and $403,888 in women of MRI relative to low-dose CT.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- LDCT:
-
Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening
- LUSI :
-
German Lung Cancer Screening Trial
- MISCAN:
-
Microsimulation screening analysis lung simulation
- MRI:
-
Lung magnetic resonance imaging for lung cancer screening
- NLST:
-
National Lung Cancer Screening Trial
- PLCO:
-
Prostate, lung, colon, and ovarian cancer screening trial
- SEER:
-
Surveillance, epidemiology, and end result
- Sn:
-
Sensitivity
- Sp:
-
Specificity
References
Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD et al (2011) Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395–409
Tanoue LT, Tanner NT, Gould MK, Silvestri GA (2015) Lung cancer screening. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 191:19–33
Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK et al (2012) Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA 307:2418–2429
Croswell JM, Baker SG, Marcus PM, Clapp JD, Kramer BS (2010) Cumulative incidence of false-positive test results in lung cancer screening: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 152(505-512):W176–W580
Pinsky PF (2014) Assessing the benefits and harms of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer Manag 3:491–498
Biederer J, Ohno Y, Hatabu H et al (2017) Screening for lung cancer: does MRI have a role? Eur J Radiol 86:353–360
Meier-Schroers M, Homsi R, Skowasch D et al (2018) Lung cancer screening with MRI: results of the first screening round. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 144:117–125
Sommer G, Tremper J, Koenigkam-Santos M et al (2014) Lung nodule detection in a high-risk population: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and low-dose computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 83:600–605
Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR (1993) Markov models in medical decision making. Med Decis Making 13:322–338
Meza R, Hazelton WD, Colditz GA, Moolgavkar SH (2008) Analysis of lung cancer incidence in the Nurses’ Health and the Health Professionals’ Follow-Up Studies using a multistage carcinogenesis model. Cancer Causes Control 19:317–328
Ten Haaf K, van Rosmalen J, de Koning HJ (2015) Lung cancer detectability by test, histology, stage, and gender: estimates from the NLST and the PLCO trials. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24:154–161
Rosenberg MA, Feuer EJ, Yu B et al (2012) Chapter 3: Cohort life tables by smoking status, removing lung cancer as a cause of death. Risk Anal 32(Suppl 1):S25–S38
Ten Haaf K, Jeon J, Tammemagi MC et al (2017) Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: a retrospective validation study. PLoS Med 14:e1002277
Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med 371:1793–1802
Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A et al (2008) Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:630–641
Johnson KM, Fain SB, Schiebler ML, Nagle S (2013) Optimized 3D ultrashort echo time pulmonary MRI. Magn Reson Med 70:1241–1250
Burris NS, Johnson KM, Larson PE et al (2015) Detection of small pulmonary nodules with ultrashort echo time sequences in oncology patients by using a PET/MR system. Radiology 278:239–246
Menezes GL, Knuttel FM, Stehouwer BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch M (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: a literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol 5:61–70
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783
Pinsky PF, Gierada DS, Black W et al (2015) Performance of lung-rads in the national lung screening trial: a retrospective assessment. Ann Intern Med 162:485–491
Kinsinger LS, Anderson C, Kim J et al (2017) Implementation of lung cancer screening in the veterans health administration. JAMA Intern Med 177:399–406
van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop M et al (2009) Management of lung nodules detected by volume ct scanning. N Engl J Med 361:2221–2229
De Koning H (2017) ES 02.01 The Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). J Thorac Oncol 12:S1611
Pastorino U, Silva M, Sestini S et al (2019) Prolonged lung cancer screening reduced 10-year mortality in the MILD Trial: new confirmation of lung cancer screening efficacy. Ann Oncol 30:1162–1169
MacMahon H, Naidich DP, Goo JM et al (2017) Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on ct images: from the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology 284:228–243
Pyenson BS, Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Yip R, Dec E (2014) Offering lung cancer screening to high-risk medicare beneficiaries saves lives and is cost-effective: an actuarial analysis. Am Health Drug Benefits 7:272–282
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to recognize Joey Kong, PhD, and Pari Pandharipande, M.D., M.P.H., for their contributions to this manuscript.
Funding
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Bradley Allen, MD, MS.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors (GBH) has significant statistical expertise.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was not required for this study because analysis was based on previously published results available in the literature.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because of the statistical/mathematical nature of this work.
Methodology
• Performed at one institution
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 2319 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allen, B.D., Schiebler, M.L., Sommer, G. et al. Cost-effectiveness of lung MRI in lung cancer screening. Eur Radiol 30, 1738–1746 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06453-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06453-9