Skip to Main Content

An official website of the United States government

Government Funding Lapse

Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit  cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at OPM.gov.

Cost-Effectiveness of Follow-Up for Subsolid Pulmonary Nodules in High-Risk Patients.

About this Publication
Title
Cost-Effectiveness of Follow-Up for Subsolid Pulmonary Nodules in High-Risk Patients.
Pubmed ID
32171847 (View this publication on the PubMed website)
Digital Object Identifier
Publication
J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Mar 11
Authors
Hammer MM, Palazzo LL, Paquette A, Eckel AL, Jacobson FL, Barbosa EM, Kong CY
Affiliations
  • Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: joey@mgh-ita.org.
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a number of follow-up guidelines and variants for subsolid pulmonary nodules.

METHODS: We used a simulation model informed by data from the literature and the National Lung Screening Trial to simulate patients with a ground glass nodule detected at baseline CT undergoing follow-up. Nodules were allowed to grow and develop solid components over time. We tested guidelines generated by varying follow-up recommendations for low-risk nodules, i.e. pure ground glass nodules or those stable over time. For each guideline, we computed average U.S. costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and identified the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of those on the efficient frontier. In addition, we compared the costs and effects of the most recently released version of Lung-RADS, v1.1, with the previous version, v1.0. Finally, we performed sensitivity analyses of our results by varying several relevant parameters.

RESULTS: Relative to no follow-up, the follow-up guideline system that was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY and had the greatest QALY assigned low-risk nodules a 2-year follow-up interval and stopped follow-up after 2 years for ground glass nodules and after 5 years for part-solid nodules; this strategy yielded an ICER of $99,970. Lung-RADS v.1.1 was found to be less costly but no less effective than Lung-RADS v1.0. These findings were essentially stable under a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION: Ceasing follow-up for low-risk subsolid nodules after 2-5 years of stability is more cost-effective than perpetual follow-up. Lung-RADS v1.1 was cheaper but similarly effective to v1.0.

Related CDAS Studies
Related CDAS Projects