0
Poster Presentations: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 |

An Autoantibody Test (AABT) To Aid in Early Detection of Lung Cancer in High-Risk Patients Is Likely To Be Cost-effective FREE TO VIEW

Peter Boyle, PhD; Derek Weycker, PhD; Anne Khuu, BA; James R. Jett, MD; Frank C. Detterbeck, MD; Timothy C. Kennedy, MD; Daniel L. Miller, MD; Herbert Fritsche, PhD; William C. Wood, MD; Geoffrey Hamilton-Fairley, BSc; John F. Robertson, MD; John Edelsberg, MD
Author and Funding Information

International Prevention Research Institute (iPRI), Lyon, France



Chest. 2010;138(4_MeetingAbstracts):241A. doi:10.1378/chest.10709
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

PURPOSE: An autoantibody test (AABT) has been recently developed as an aid to early detection of lung cancer in high-risk patients. While less sensitive than computed tomography (CT), it can detect smaller, less advanced cancers and has greater specificity than CT. The cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer using AABT is unknown.

METHODS: Assuming effectiveness of screening a high-risk population with CT, we developed a model depicting the consequences of screening high-risk patients - a single time - a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 high-risk screening-naïve patients (mean age, 60 years) for lung cancer using AABT followed by CT if positive (AABT->CT) and AABT plus CT (AABT+CT) for all patients, vs CT alone and vs no screening. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)--indolent and aggressive types--and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were considered. Sensitivity and specificity of AABT (price=$300) were assumed to be 40% and 90%; for CT (price=$301), corresponding estimates were calculated to be, from a "prevalence-screen" perspective using data from the Mayo Clinic screening study, 47% and 49%. Cancers detected with AABT were assumed, on average, to be smaller and less advanced. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the ratio of the difference in expected costs (2008US$) to the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for AABT->CT and AABT+CT, vs CT alone and vs no screening.

RESULTS: A total of 2901 of the 100,000 high-risk persons would be expected to have undiagnosed aggressive NSCLC or SCLC. True-positives would total: 1161 with AABT->CT, 1979 with AABT+CT, and 1363 with CT; corresponding false-positives would total 9623 (AABT->CT), 53,794 (AABT+CT), and 49,079 (CT).

CONCLUSION: Screening high-risk patients for lung cancer using AABT, in conjunction with CT, is likely to be cost-effective by current standards in comparison with screening with CT alone or no screening.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: If a physician decides to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer, an AABT may offer an additional aid to early detection.

DISCLOSURE: Peter Boyle, Grant monies (from industry related sources) Work conducted by PAI was funded by Oncimmune Ltd.; No Product/Research Disclosure Information

12:45 PM - 2:00 PM


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543