This blog may upset some. It’s quite uncompromising. It’s also a non referenced blog, not a PhD thesis.
Early diagnosis of lung cancer is a good thing. Undoubtedly and indisputably.
The problem is we don’t know how to do it reliably at population level.
There are two main spins
Screening for lung cancer. Mostly in cohorts with known xxxx pack years (>30 I think is where we settled)
Screening rarely saves lives….It sometimes changes, slightly, cause specific mortality.
As Muir once said – all screening does harm, some does good, v little does more good than harm, is cost effective and affordable.
The lung cancer screening studies have been concluded largely. They were good, well conducted RCTs – USA and U.K.
Spiral CT not XR.
From memory – happy to stand corrected – there was a reduction in lung cancer mortality but not all cause mortality – i.e. It changes the cause, but not the time of death.
We don’t really know whether it is cost effective
There are many interesting and quite nuanced debates going on around harms of this screening proposition.
I’m also aware that some parts of England – Liverpool? Manchester? have got on with it. Maybe they know better than NSC. They certainly know better than me.
We are awaiting a NSC view on these.
Early diagnosis initiatives.
The various spins of this:
get a chest XR if you’ve had a cough for longer than X weeks are basically unorganised screening – maybe we should call it fishing.
There are various spins – ads on back of bus – direct access X-ray
Coughing bus shelter, worried? go to GP, assessment, X-ray
National media campaign – go to GP, assessment, X ray
- Given that the cohort is far less well defined than in a structured screening cohort the yield, this population level effectiveness, thus cost effectiveness is going to be considerably lower than in a structured screening
- All the same biases apply to this as per screening – lead and length time. Both important and both of uncertain impact, but v v likely to make the proposition less likely to be effective
- We have a poor understanding of and haven’t really modelled the demand this type of activity creates and the capacity required to meet it.
- We have no idea of the specificity & sensitivity of this screening test
- We don’t know the cost effectiveness. Well actually we don’t have a great handle on effectiveness….
From memory the back of bus advert to open assess x ray model basically irradiated lots of people and didn’t find much additional cancer and the cancer it did find wasn’t early enough, staging wise, for surgery. So net harm? Esp if you take into account the lost opp cost
From memory the evaluation of other models have led to lots of GP appointments, lots of XR (maybe meaning that those with more pressing need need to wait longer?) and not found much additional cancer early enough to undertake surgery.
Campbell et al gave some data on the open access XR model.
Enabling patients with respiratory symptoms to access chest X-rays on demand: the experience of the walk-in service in Corby, UK. Journal of Public Health | Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 511 – 516 | doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdt104
- Open access CXR for people worried about symptoms. Corby. n=22k 63% increase in CXR for open access. 47% increase in GP requested in same time.
- 463 additional CXR in walk in service.
- All clinically indicated according to local criteria
- TWO cases of Ca Lung found.
- Both too late to operate.
- Similar to what Leeds found (Cheyne et al, Thorax, 2012 67(suppl 2) A44-A5 http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/3/511.abstract
O’Dowd tested which characteristics of primary care and patients are associated with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK?
- Of 20,142 people with lung cancer, those who died early consult ed with primary care more frequently pre diagnosis. Individual factors associated with early death were set out.
- The study concluded that patients who die early from lung cancer are interacting wit h primary care prediagnosis, suggesting potential missed opport unities to identify them earlier. A general increase in CXR requests may not improve survival; rather, a more timely and appropriate targeting of this investigation using risk assessment tools needs further assessment.
O ’Dowd EL,et al . Thorax.doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205692. What characteristics of primary care and patients are associated with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK?
There are no control group studies of any model yet as far as I’m aware. Ditto we don’t know the cost effectiveness of such models, nor the opportunity cost, nor the unanticipated impact on GP and chest clinic / XR dept.
It’s also worth saying that chest XR is a pretty poor test for early lung cancer.
The money – this will all save mega cash
The notion it will save money is worth exploring. One of the better economic analysis in this area of recent years was from Incisive Health
Saving lives, averting costs. An analysis of the financial implications of achieving earlier diagnosis of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancer
It is excellent and well worth reading. Key points from the summary here:-
Early stage cancer treatment is significantly less expensive than treatment for advanced disease:
- For colon cancer, stage 1 treatment costs £3,373, whereas stage 4 treatment costs £12,519
- For rectal cancer, stage 1 treatment costs £4,449, whereas stage 4 tre atment costs £11,815
- For lung cancer, stage 1 treatment costs £7,952, whereas stage 4 treatment costs £13,078
- For ovarian cancer, stage 1 treatment costs £5,328, whereas stage 4 treatment costs £15,081
However, the costs of recurrence can be significant and should be taken into account when modelling overall cancer treatment costs.
late diagnosis is a major driver of NHS cancer treatment costs. Treatment for stage 3 and 4 colon, rectal, lung and ovarian cancer costs the NHS nearly two and a half times the amount spent on stage 1 and 2 services.
Significant savings could be realised if all CCGs were able to achieve the level of early diagnosis of the best.
For lung cancer, over 3,400 patients would benefit. Due to the higher level of recurrence that occurs in lung cancer, achieving this level of earlier diagnosis would incur a cost of £ 6.4 million.
Although delivering earlier diagnosis for lung cancer would not be cost saving, it would be highly cost – effective. Achieving the stage distribution of the best CCG in England could generate an additional 4,275 years of life. This equates to a cost of £1,515 per year of life gained.
(NB – this is fab, though still not cost saving, it’s pretty good value in the scheme of things…..but……it’s not at all clear whether Incisive included in their modelling the cost of programmes to achieve the early diagnosis, all the diagnostic cost, GP time and false positives etc etc….that’s important!
If I’m right in my assumption that this wasn’t factored in, it would send the economic model southwards, how far south is unknown).
Taking the four cancers together, achieving the level of early diagnosis comparable with the best in England could deliver savings of over £44million, benefitting nearly 1 11,000 patients.
(NB 2 see above caveat re programme and diagnostic / GP costs)
Lesson of incisive – it’s a good thing to do, but don’t sssumr there’s mega dollars to be saved.
So whilst I have no doubt that early diagnosis of lung cancer is a good thing, and that we must do better…..there isn’t much evidence that the various models to achieve the goal are effective, cost effective, affordable and we really understand the unanticipated impacts. Others have documented that our push in this direction will Increase The Number Of Cases Overdiagnosis – https://qafemoxu.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/rapid-diagnostics-of-cancer-increases-the-number-of-cases-overdiagnosis-part-1-of-3/
I’m not necessarily arguing against efforts to diagnose cancer earlier. It’s a worthwhile thing to try to do. I am arguing that we should enter into and programme armed with data, evidence and realistic assumptions about what will happen, and me mindful of the opportunity costs and unanticipated consequences.
We should also be mindful that efforts to achieve this goal may cost us more than the current model and not be the cost save we all want. This is in theory fine, but may take resources away from other areas such as heart disease, mental health, general practice, community nursing. Cancer is no more or less special than other areas we spend our health care dollar on.
Given the poor, or perhaps better expressed – developing, basis in science could this type of model be seen as the equivalent of marketting a drug that hasn’t finished clinical trials?
If we want improve lung cancer mortality, reducing incidence remains – by a country mile – the most effective, efficient and equitable thing we can do, and gives greatest return for taxpayers dollar. That means tobacco control and smoking cessation – something we are busy stripping money out of right now as the chancellor has told us to cut the public health budget. Go figure.
By the way, don’t just think I’m picking on lung cancer. I could say even more awkward things about bowel cancer campaigns……..maybe I’ll come back to that.