Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection
OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a serious challenge for the health system. In 2022 CRC represented 8% of cancer diagnoses in the United States. 30% of patients already show metastases at the initial tumor staging. The majority of these metastases are sited in the liver. According to their ext...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10405934/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554160 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1161738 |
_version_ | 1785085645521158144 |
---|---|
author | Schnitzer, Moritz L. von Münchhausen, Niklas Biechele, Gloria Runtemund, Jasmin Grawe, Freba Geyer, Thomas Kaiser, Clemens G. Haag, Florian Rübenthaler, Johannes Froelich, Matthias F. |
author_facet | Schnitzer, Moritz L. von Münchhausen, Niklas Biechele, Gloria Runtemund, Jasmin Grawe, Freba Geyer, Thomas Kaiser, Clemens G. Haag, Florian Rübenthaler, Johannes Froelich, Matthias F. |
author_sort | Schnitzer, Moritz L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a serious challenge for the health system. In 2022 CRC represented 8% of cancer diagnoses in the United States. 30% of patients already show metastases at the initial tumor staging. The majority of these metastases are sited in the liver. According to their extension and the status of the tumor colorectal liver metastases can be treated in several ways, with hepatic resection being the gold-standard. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used for evaluation of resectability of these liver metastases. The aim of this study is to assess the most economic imaging modality for detecting liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection by analyzing their cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our study, a Markov state transition model was built to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and overall costs for each diagnostic strategy in accord with the stated input values obtained from scientific research. Further, probabilistic sensitivity analyses by means of Monte Carlo simulations were performed to consider possible model uncertainties. For evaluation of the cost-effectiveness on an economic threshold, the Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set at $ 100,000. The applied values and the calculated results are based on the U.S. healthcare system. RESULTS: CE-CT led to overall costs of $ 42,874.02 and 8.47 QALYs, whereas MRI led to $ 40,863.65 and 8.50 QALYs. PET/CT resulted in overall costs of $ 43,216.74 and 8.48 QALYs. Therefore, MRI was determined to be the dominant strategy in the model. According to the performed sensitivity analyses, MRI remained cost-effective over a wide range of WTPs. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, according to our analysis, MRI is the dominant strategy for detecting hepatic metastases eligible for hepatic resection in colorectal cancer. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10405934 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104059342023-08-08 Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection Schnitzer, Moritz L. von Münchhausen, Niklas Biechele, Gloria Runtemund, Jasmin Grawe, Freba Geyer, Thomas Kaiser, Clemens G. Haag, Florian Rübenthaler, Johannes Froelich, Matthias F. Front Oncol Oncology OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a serious challenge for the health system. In 2022 CRC represented 8% of cancer diagnoses in the United States. 30% of patients already show metastases at the initial tumor staging. The majority of these metastases are sited in the liver. According to their extension and the status of the tumor colorectal liver metastases can be treated in several ways, with hepatic resection being the gold-standard. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT), positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used for evaluation of resectability of these liver metastases. The aim of this study is to assess the most economic imaging modality for detecting liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection by analyzing their cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In our study, a Markov state transition model was built to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and overall costs for each diagnostic strategy in accord with the stated input values obtained from scientific research. Further, probabilistic sensitivity analyses by means of Monte Carlo simulations were performed to consider possible model uncertainties. For evaluation of the cost-effectiveness on an economic threshold, the Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set at $ 100,000. The applied values and the calculated results are based on the U.S. healthcare system. RESULTS: CE-CT led to overall costs of $ 42,874.02 and 8.47 QALYs, whereas MRI led to $ 40,863.65 and 8.50 QALYs. PET/CT resulted in overall costs of $ 43,216.74 and 8.48 QALYs. Therefore, MRI was determined to be the dominant strategy in the model. According to the performed sensitivity analyses, MRI remained cost-effective over a wide range of WTPs. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, according to our analysis, MRI is the dominant strategy for detecting hepatic metastases eligible for hepatic resection in colorectal cancer. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10405934/ /pubmed/37554160 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1161738 Text en Copyright © 2023 Schnitzer, von Münchhausen, Biechele, Runtemund, Grawe, Geyer, Kaiser, Haag, Rübenthaler and Froelich https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Schnitzer, Moritz L. von Münchhausen, Niklas Biechele, Gloria Runtemund, Jasmin Grawe, Freba Geyer, Thomas Kaiser, Clemens G. Haag, Florian Rübenthaler, Johannes Froelich, Matthias F. Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection |
title | Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness analysis of mri, ce-ct and 18f-fdg pet/ct for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10405934/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554160 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1161738 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schnitzermoritzl costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT vonmunchhausenniklas costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT biechelegloria costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT runtemundjasmin costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT grawefreba costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT geyerthomas costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT kaiserclemensg costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT haagflorian costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT rubenthalerjohannes costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection AT froelichmatthiasf costeffectivenessanalysisofmricectand18ffdgpetctfordetectingcolorectallivermetastaseseligibleforhepaticresection |