You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 289 No. 18, May 14, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (2)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Lung Cancer
 •Pulmonary Diseases
 •Pulmonary Diseases, Other
 •Radiologic Imaging
 •Diagnosis
 •Computed Tomography
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Mahadevia and colleagues1 concluded that, even if efficacy of screening with helical CT were ultimately to be established by ongoing trials, it is unlikely to be highly cost-effective without significant reductions in costs as well as in rates of mortality, adherence, and overdiagnosis. The authors incorporated an exceedingly large number of factors in their analytic model, including estimates and sensitivity tests of adherence rates to screening protocol; length, lead time, and overdiagnosis biases; quality of life; and informal caregiver costs. Yet, given the current state of knowledge, it is precisely this all-encompassing approach that is worrisome, and one that might lead prematurely to the conclusion that lung cancer screening with CT is cost-ineffective.

In an analysis with similar aims,2 we concluded that CT screening for lung cancer might well be more cost-effective than it first appears. However, our analysis incorporated fewer variables, mostly because we felt . . . [Full Text of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer
Jerome Reich
JAMA. 2003;289(18):2357.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer
Thomas L. Petty
JAMA. 2003;289(18):2357.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer—Reply
Parthiv J. Mahadevia and Neil R. Powe
JAMA. 2003;289(18):2358-2359.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Lung Cancer Screening With Helical Computed Tomography in Older Adult Smokers: A Decision and Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Parthiv J. Mahadevia, Lee A. Fleisher, Kevin D. Frick, John Eng, Steven N. Goodman, and Neil R. Powe
JAMA. 2003;289(3):313-322.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2003 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.