Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Nov;6(11):1841–1848. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31822e59b3

Table 1.

Annual CT screening (≥20 pack-year smoking history) vs. no intervention.

Cohort sex Cohort age Screen frequency/ages % of cohort screened Risk of radiation-induced lung cancer? Fewer follow-up CT exams? Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($/QALY) Mortality reduction (%) versus no intervention, (10 year follow-up) Mortality reduction (%) versus no intervention, (15 year follow-up)
Males 50 annual/50–70 69 149,000 25.16 28.69
+ 158,000 25.06 28.08
+ 147,000 23.15 24.80
+ + 150,000 23.14 24.69

60 annual/60–74 72 135,000 25.06 27.66
+ 139,000 24.96 27.18
+ 129,000 23.01 23.80
+ + 130,000 22.99 23.71

70 annual/70–74 70 169,000 20.94 16.21
+ 172,000 20.85 15.92
+ 160,000 19.45 14.81
+ + 160,000 19.43 14.77

Females 50 annual/50–70 40 137,000 19.48 22.37
+ 203,000 19.18 19.63
+ 135,000 18.09 19.44
+ + 152,000 18.03 19.00

60 annual/60–74 47 126,000 23.07 25.21
+ 151,000 22.80 22.87
+ 121,000 21.15 21.60
+ + 127,000 21.08 21.16

70 annual/70–74 39 159,000 17.98 13.26
+ 172,000 17.76 12.00
+ 153,000 16.10 11.61
+ + 156,000 16.11 11.35

Scenarios that included (+) risks of radiation induced lung cancer assumed 3.8–3.9mGy (screening CT) and 58mGy (follow-up CT) organ doses, and a 10-year lag between exposure and incidence. See text for details of scenarios that modeled (+) less-intensive follow-up. Costs and QALYs discounted at 3% annually.