The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost-Effectiveness of CT Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed that screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) as compared with chest radiography reduced lung-cancer mortality. We examined the cost-effectiveness of screening with low-dose CT in the NLST. METHODS: We estimated mean life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative strategies: screening with low-dose CT, screening with radiography, and no screening. Estimations of life-years were based on the number of observed deaths that occurred during the trial and the projected survival of persons who were alive at the end of the trial. Quality adjustments were derived from a subgroup of participants who were selected to complete quality-of-life surveys. Costs were based on utilization rates and Medicare reimbursements. We also performed analyses of subgroups defined according to age, sex, smoking history, and risk of lung cancer and performed sensitivity analyses based on several assumptions. RESULTS: As compared with no screening, screening with low-dose CT cost an additional $1,631 per person (95% confidence interval [CI], 1,557 to 1,709) and provided an additional 0.0316 life-years per person (95% CI, 0.0154 to 0.0478) and 0.0201 QALYs per person (95% CI, 0.0088 to 0.0314). The corresponding ICERs were $52,000 per life-year gained (95% CI, 34,000 to 106,000) and $81,000 per QALY gained (95% CI, 52,000 to 186,000). However, the ICERs varied widely in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated that screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT would cost $81,000 per QALY gained, but we also determined that modest changes in our assumptions would greatly alter this figure. The determination of whether screening outside the trial will be cost-effective will depend on how screening is implemented. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102873 · Cited by 11,064
Siegel, R., Naishadham, D., & Jemal, A. (2012) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20138 · Cited by 10,679
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold
Neumann, P. J., Cohen, J. T., & Weinstein, M. C. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1405158 · Cited by 2,249
Overdiagnosis in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer
Patz, E. F., Pinsky, P., Gatsonis, C., Sicks, J. D., Kramer, B. S., Tammemägi, M. C., Chiles, C., Black, W. C., & Aberle, D. R. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12738 · Cited by 776
Self-citationConsequences of false-positive screening mammograms
Tosteson, A. N. A., Fryback, D. G., Hammond, C. S., Hanna, L. G., Grove, M. R., Brown, M., Wang, Q., Lindfors, K., & Pisano, E. D. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981 · Cited by 217
Cited by
Ardila, D., Kiraly, A. P., Bharadwaj, S., Choi, B., Reicher, J. J., Peng, L., Tse, D., Etemadi, M., Ye, W., Corrado, G., et al. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0447-x · Cited by 2,167
Breast Cancer, Version 4.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Gradishar, W. J., Anderson, B. O., Balassanian, R., Blair, S. L., Burstein, H. J., Cyr, A., Elias, A. D., Farrar, W. B., Forero, A., Giordano, S. H., et al. (2018) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0012 · Cited by 1,609
Innate Immune Landscape in Early Lung Adenocarcinoma by Paired Single-Cell Analyses
Lavin, Y., Kobayashi, S., Leader, A., Amir, E.-A. D., Elefant, N., Bigenwald, C., Remark, R., Sweeney, R., Becker, C. D., Levine, J. H., et al. (2017) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.04.014 · Cited by 1,209
Circulating tumor DNA and liquid biopsy in oncology
Cescon, D. W., Bratman, S. V., Chan, S. M., & Siu, L. L. (2020) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-020-0043-5 · Cited by 600
The International Epidemiology of Lung Cancer: Latest Trends, Disparities, and Tumor Characteristics
Cheng, T.-Y. D., Cramb, S. M., Baade, P. D., Youlden, D. R., Nwogu, C., & Reid, M. E. (2016) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2016.05.021 · Cited by 600
Metadata
- Authors
- Black, W. C., Gareen, I. F., Soneji, S. S., Sicks, J. D., Keeler, E. B., Aberle, D. R., Naeim, A., Church, T. R., Silvestri, G. A., Gorelick, J., & Gatsonis, C.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2014-11-06
- Volume
- 371
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1793-1802
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2103348420
- Cited by
- 544
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 45.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cost-Effectiveness of CT Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1312547
- The paper
- Black, W. C., Gareen, I. F., Soneji, S. S., Sicks, J. D., Keeler, E. B., Aberle, D. R., Naeim, A., Church, T. R., Silvestri, G. A., Gorelick, J., & Gatsonis, C. (2014). Cost-Effectiveness of CT Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1312547
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.