Personalizing annual lung cancer screening for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with annual chest computed tomography (CT) is recommended for current and former smokers with a ≥30-pack-year smoking history. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of developing lung cancer and may benefit from screening at lower pack-year thresholds. METHODS: We used a previously validated simulation model to compare the health benefits of lung cancer screening in current and former smokers ages 55-80 with ≥30 pack-years with hypothetical programs using lower pack-year thresholds for individuals with COPD (≥20, ≥10, and ≥1 pack-years). Calibration targets for COPD prevalence and associated lung cancer risk were derived using the Framingham Offspring Study limited data set. We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the stability of results across different rates of adherence to screening, increased competing mortality risk from COPD, and increased surgical ineligibility in individuals with COPD. The primary outcome was projected life expectancy. RESULTS: Programs using lower pack-year thresholds for individuals with COPD yielded the highest life expectancy gains for a given number of screens. Highest life expectancy was achieved when lowering the pack-year threshold to ≥1 pack-year for individuals with COPD, which dominated all other screening strategies. These results were stable across different adherence rates to screening and increases in competing mortality risk for COPD and surgical ineligibility. CONCLUSIONS: Current and former smokers with COPD may disproportionately benefit from lung cancer screening. A lower pack-year threshold for screening eligibility may benefit this high-risk patient population.

Prioritizing examination-centered over patient-centered dose reduction: a hazard of institutional "benchmarking".

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate whether examination-specific radiation dose metrics reliably measure an institution's success in reducing cancer risks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We projected health benefits from dose-reduction programs in a hypothetical institution that sought to decrease exposures from abdominopelvic CT. Using modeling techniques to project radiation-induced cancer risks and tertiary center data to inform the institution's abdominopelvic CT age distribution, we compared a program in which effective doses were reduced equally (from 10 to 7 mSv) across all scans with programs in which dose reduction was age dependent. For each program, we projected lethal cancers averted, life expectancy gained, and average institutional dose achieved. Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate uncertainty in projections. RESULTS: The analysis's age distribution drew from 20,979 CT scans; 39% were from patients 65 years old and older. To illustrate trends yielded, if all patients in the hypothetical institution underwent 7-mSv (instead of 10-mSv) scans, we projected the maximum number of lethal cancers averted to be seven per 100,000 patients, and maximum life expectancy gained to be 0.26 days per patient, when averaged over the institution's population. When restricting dose reduction (from 10 to 7 mSv) to patients younger than 65 years, benefits were slightly lower (five lethal cancers averted per 100,000 patients and 0.22 days per patient gained); however, the average institutional dose was substantially higher (8.2 mSv). Although dose reduction in patients 65 years old and older accounted for only 16% of possible institutional life expectancy gains, this patient group contributed disproportionately (39%) to the institution's average dose. CONCLUSION: Institutional examination-specific dose metrics can be misleading, because the least-benefited patients may contribute disproportionately toward "improved" averages.

Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recommend earlier, more intensive breast cancer screening with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography for women with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations. Unspecified details of screening schedules are a challenge for implementing guidelines. METHODS: A Markov Monte Carlo computer model was used to simulate screening in asymptomatic women who were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Three dual-modality strategies were compared with digital mammography (DM) alone: 1) DM and MRI alternating at 6-month intervals beginning at age 25 years (Alt25), 2) annual MRI beginning at age 25 years with alternating DM added at age 30 years (MRI25/Alt30), and 3) DM and MRI alternating at 6-month intervals beginning at age 30 years (Alt30). Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs (in 2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness (dollars per QALY gained). Additional outcomes included potential harms of screening, and lifetime costs stratified into component categories (screening and diagnosis, treatment, mortality, and patient time costs). RESULTS: All 3 dual-modality screening strategies increased QALYs and costs. Alt30 screening had the lowest incremental costs per additional QALY gained (BRCA1, $74,200 per QALY; BRCA2, $215,700 per QALY). False-positive test results increased substantially with dual-modality screening and occurred more frequently in BRCA2 carriers. Downstream savings in both breast cancer treatment and mortality costs were outweighed by increases in up-front screening and diagnosis costs. The results were influenced most by estimates of breast cancer risk and MRI costs. CONCLUSIONS: Alternating MRI and DM screening at 6-month intervals beginning at age 30 years was identified as a clinically effective approach to applying current guidelines, and was more cost-effective in BRCA1 gene mutation carriers compared with BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Patients with testicular cancer undergoing CT surveillance demonstrate a pitfall of radiation-induced cancer risk estimates: the timing paradox.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate a limitation of lifetime radiation-induced cancer risk metrics in the setting of testicular cancer surveillance-in particular, their failure to capture the delayed timing of radiation-induced cancers over the course of a patient's lifetime. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for the use of computed tomographic (CT) dosimetry data in this study. Informed consent was waived. This study was HIPAA compliant. A Markov model was developed to project outcomes in patients with testicular cancer who were undergoing CT surveillance in the decade after orchiectomy. To quantify effects of early versus delayed risks, life expectancy losses and lifetime mortality risks due to testicular cancer were compared with life expectancy losses and lifetime mortality risks due to radiation-induced cancers from CT. Projections of life expectancy loss, unlike lifetime risk estimates, account for the timing of risks over the course of a lifetime, which enabled evaluation of the described limitation of lifetime risk estimates. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: As an example of evidence yielded, 33-year-old men with stage I seminoma who were undergoing CT surveillance were projected to incur a slightly higher lifetime mortality risk from testicular cancer (598 per 100 000; 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 302, 894) than from radiation-induced cancers (505 per 100 000; 95% UI: 280, 730). However, life expectancy loss attributable to testicular cancer (83 days; 95% UI: 42, 124) was more than three times greater than life expectancy loss attributable to radiation-induced cancers (24 days; 95% UI: 13, 35). Trends were consistent across modeled scenarios. CONCLUSION: Lifetime radiation risk estimates, when used for decision making, may overemphasize radiation-induced cancer risks relative to short-term health risks.

Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for breast cancer-susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, there is no current consensus on the optimal screening regimen. METHODS: The authors used a computer simulation model to compare 6 annual screening strategies (film mammography [FM], digital mammography [DM], FM and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or DM and MRI contemporaneously, and alternating FM/MRI or DM/MRI at 6-month intervals) beginning at ages 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and 40 years, and 2 strategies of annual MRI with delayed alternating DM/FM versus clinical surveillance alone. Strategies were evaluated without and with mammography-induced breast cancer risk using 2 models of excess relative risk. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, publicly available databases, and calibration. RESULTS: Without radiation risk effects, alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years provided the highest life expectancy (BRCA1, 72.52 years, BRCA2, 77.63 years). When radiation risk was included, a small proportion of diagnosed cancers was attributable to radiation exposure (BRCA1, <2%; BRCA2, <4%). With radiation risk, alternating DM/MRI at age 25 years or annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years was the most effective, depending on the radiation risk model used. Alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years also produced the highest number of false-positive screens per woman (BRCA1, 4.5 BRCA2, 8.1). CONCLUSIONS: Annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years is probably the most effective screening strategy in BRCA mutation carriers. Screening benefits, associated risks, and personal acceptance of false-positive results should be considered in choosing the optimal screening strategy for individual women.