Is intraoperative ultrasound more efficient than magnetic resonance in neurosurgical oncology? An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE: Intraoperative imaging is a chief asset in neurosurgical oncology, it improves the extent of resection and postoperative outcomes. Imaging devices have evolved considerably, in particular ultrasound (iUS) and magnetic resonance (iMR). Although iUS is regarded as a more economically convenient and yet effective asset, no formal comparison between the efficiency of iUS and iMR in neurosurgical oncology has been performed. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two single-center prospectively collected surgical cohorts, classified according to the intraoperative imaging used. iMR (2013-2016) and iUS (2021-2022) groups comprised low- and high-grade gliomas, with a maximal safe resection intention. Units of health gain were gross total resection and equal or increased Karnofsky performance status. Surgical and health costs were considered for analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for the two intervention alternatives. The cost-utility graphic and the evolution of surgical duration with the gained experience were also analyzed. RESULTS: 50 patients followed an iMR-assisted operation, while 17 underwent an iUS-guided surgery. Gross total resection was achieved in 70% with iMR and in 60% with iUS. Median postoperative Karnofsky was similar in both group (KPS 90). Health costs were € 3,220 higher with iMR, and so were surgical-related costs (€ 1,976 higher). The ICER was € 322 per complete resection obtained with iMR, and € 644 per KPS gained or maintained with iMR. When only surgical-related costs were analyzed, ICER was € 198 per complete resection with iMR and € 395 per KPS gained or maintained. CONCLUSION: This is an unprecedented but preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of the two most common intraoperative imaging devices in neurosurgical oncology. iMR, although being costlier and time-consuming, seems cost-effective in terms of complete resection rates and postoperative performance status. However, the differences between both techniques are small. Possibly, iMR and iUS are complementary aids during the resection: iUS real-time images assist while advancing towards the tumor limits, informing about the distance to relevant landmarks and correcting neuronavigation inaccuracy due to brain shift. Yet, at the end of resection, it is the iMR that reliably corroborates whether residual tumor remains.