Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Abstract

BackgroundDue to extensive literature in the field of lung cancer and their heterogeneous results, the aim of this study was to systematically review of systematic reviews studies which reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various lung cancer screening and treatment methods.MethodsIn this systematic review of systematic reviews study, required data were collected searching the following key words which selected from Mesh: “lung cancer”, “lung oncology”, “lung Carcinoma”, “lung neoplasm”, “lung tumors”, “cost- effectiveness”, “systematic review” and “Meta-analysis”. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library electronic databases, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers (RA and A-AS) evaluated the articles according to the checklist of “assessment of multiple systematic reviews” (AMSTAR) tool.ResultsOverall, information of 110 papers was discussed in eight systematic reviews. Authors focused on cost-effectiveness of lung cancer treatments in five systematic reviews. Targeted therapy options (bevacizumab, Erlotinib and Crizotinib) show an acceptable cost-effectiveness. Results of three studies failed to show cost-effectiveness of screening methods. None of the studies had used the meta-analysis method. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool and Drummond checklist were mostly used in assessing the quality of articles. Most perspective was related to the Payer (64 times) and the lowest was related to Social (11times). Most cases referred to Incremental analysis (82%) and also the lowest point of referral was related to Discounting (in 49% of the cases). The average quality score of included studies was calculated 9.2% from 11.ConclusionsTargeted therapy can be an option for the treatment of lung cancer. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) in lung cancer screening is recommended. The perspective of the community should be more taken into consideration in studies of cost-effectiveness. Paying more attention to the topic of Discounting will be necessary in the studies.

Lidocaine inhibits proliferation and metastasis of lung cancer cell via regulation of miR-539/EGFR axis

“…Thus, suppressing lung cancer growth and metastasis has been considered as a promising therapeutic strategy for treating this cancer. Currently, the most main treatment for lung cancer is surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and molecular targeted therapy of comprehensive treatment [2,3]. Although these therapies have been utilized in clinic, more effective strategies are still required to be developed which will be helpful for further increase the survival of patients.…”

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

“…The BMJ checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) was used to assess the quality of the economic evaluation studies included in the present review. This checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) has been widely used and scrutinized across different therapeutic fields (Azar et al 2017;Carter et al 2017;Dubas-Jak obczyk et al 2017;G erard et al 2017;Elshout et al 2018;Shields et al 2018;Ribeiro et al 2019). Additionally, it can be applied to both trialbased and model-based economic evaluation studies and it is the checklist recommended by the Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (Wijnen et al 2016;Ribeiro et al 2019).…”

Ubiquitin‑specific peptidase 17 promotes cisplatin resistance via PI3K/AKT activation in non‑small cell lung cancer

“…Lung cancer is the one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide (1), and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for almost 80% of these deaths (2). Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the main treatment used for patients with major NSCLC (2). However, the long-term prognosis for patients with NSCLC still remains poor, with the 5-year survival rate being only ~11% (3).…”