The Cost-Effectiveness Of The Manchester ‘Lung Health Checks’, A Community-Based Lung Cancer Low-Dose CT Screening Pilot

Sebastian Hinde, Tessa Crilly, Haval Balata, Rachel Bartlett, John Crilly, Phil Barber, Anthony Threlfall, Janet Tonge, Richard Booton, Phil Crosbie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: Previous evaluations of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening programmes have taken very different approaches in the design of the informative trials and the methods applied to determine cost-effectiveness. Therefore, it has not been possible to determine if differences in cost-effectiveness are due to different screening approaches or the evaluation methodology. This study reports the findings of an evaluation of the first round of a community-based, LDCT screening pilot Manchester, applying previously published methodology to ensure consistency. Methods: Using the economic evaluation method reported in the UKLS trial, applying Manchester specific evidence where possible, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of LDCT for lung cancer. Estimates of the total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. Results: The Manchester programme cost £663,076, diagnosed 42 patients with lung cancer resulting in a gain in population health of 88.13 discounted life years, equivalent to 65.85 QALYs. This implied an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,069/QALY. Conclusions: We found the Manchester programme to be a cost-effective use of limited NHS resources. The findings suggest that further research is now needed not as to whether LDCT screening is cost-effective but under what conditions can it improve patient health by the most while remaining cost-effective.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)119-124
Number of pages6
JournalLung Cancer
Early online date2 Nov 2018
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2018

Bibliographical note

This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy.


  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Early detection
  • Economic evaluation
  • Low-dose CT
  • Lung cancer
  • Screening

Cite this