Cargando…

Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Purpose: After a percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), follow-up investigations to evaluate potential tumor recurrence are necessary. The aim of this study was to analyze whether a combined 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schnitzer, Moritz L., Froelich, Matthias F., Gassert, Felix G., Huber, Thomas, Gresser, Eva, Schwarze, Vincent, Nörenberg, Dominik, Todica, Andrei, Rübenthaler, Johannes
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7565889/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32867107
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12092432
_version_ 1783596032266862592
author Schnitzer, Moritz L.
Froelich, Matthias F.
Gassert, Felix G.
Huber, Thomas
Gresser, Eva
Schwarze, Vincent
Nörenberg, Dominik
Todica, Andrei
Rübenthaler, Johannes
author_facet Schnitzer, Moritz L.
Froelich, Matthias F.
Gassert, Felix G.
Huber, Thomas
Gresser, Eva
Schwarze, Vincent
Nörenberg, Dominik
Todica, Andrei
Rübenthaler, Johannes
author_sort Schnitzer, Moritz L.
collection PubMed
description Purpose: After a percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), follow-up investigations to evaluate potential tumor recurrence are necessary. The aim of this study was to analyze whether a combined 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) scan is cost-effective compared to a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) scan for detecting local tumor progression. Materials and Methods: A decision model based on Markov simulations that estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was developed. Model input parameters were obtained from the recent literature. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of diagnostic parameters based on a Monte-Carlo simulation with 30,000 iterations was performed. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set to $100,000/QALY. Results: In the base-case scenario, CE-CT resulted in total costs of $28,625.08 and an efficacy of 0.755 QALYs, whereas 18F-FDG PET/CT resulted in total costs of $29,239.97 with an efficacy of 0.767. Therefore, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 18F-FDG PET/CT was $50,338.96 per QALY indicating cost-effectiveness based on the WTP threshold set above. The results were stable in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Based on our model, 18F-FDG PET/CT can be considered as a cost-effective imaging alternative for follow-up investigations after percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7565889
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75658892020-10-26 Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Schnitzer, Moritz L. Froelich, Matthias F. Gassert, Felix G. Huber, Thomas Gresser, Eva Schwarze, Vincent Nörenberg, Dominik Todica, Andrei Rübenthaler, Johannes Cancers (Basel) Article Purpose: After a percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), follow-up investigations to evaluate potential tumor recurrence are necessary. The aim of this study was to analyze whether a combined 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) scan is cost-effective compared to a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) scan for detecting local tumor progression. Materials and Methods: A decision model based on Markov simulations that estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was developed. Model input parameters were obtained from the recent literature. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of diagnostic parameters based on a Monte-Carlo simulation with 30,000 iterations was performed. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set to $100,000/QALY. Results: In the base-case scenario, CE-CT resulted in total costs of $28,625.08 and an efficacy of 0.755 QALYs, whereas 18F-FDG PET/CT resulted in total costs of $29,239.97 with an efficacy of 0.767. Therefore, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 18F-FDG PET/CT was $50,338.96 per QALY indicating cost-effectiveness based on the WTP threshold set above. The results were stable in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Based on our model, 18F-FDG PET/CT can be considered as a cost-effective imaging alternative for follow-up investigations after percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases. MDPI 2020-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7565889/ /pubmed/32867107 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12092432 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Schnitzer, Moritz L.
Froelich, Matthias F.
Gassert, Felix G.
Huber, Thomas
Gresser, Eva
Schwarze, Vincent
Nörenberg, Dominik
Todica, Andrei
Rübenthaler, Johannes
Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
title Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
title_full Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
title_fullStr Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
title_short Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
title_sort follow-up 18f-fdg pet/ct versus contrast-enhanced ct after ablation of liver metastases of colorectal carcinoma—a cost-effectiveness analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7565889/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32867107
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12092432
work_keys_str_mv AT schnitzermoritzl followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT froelichmatthiasf followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT gassertfelixg followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT huberthomas followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT gressereva followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT schwarzevincent followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT norenbergdominik followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT todicaandrei followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis
AT rubenthalerjohannes followup18ffdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctafterablationoflivermetastasesofcolorectalcarcinomaacosteffectivenessanalysis