1
|
Schnitzer ML, von Münchhausen N, Biechele G, Runtemund J, Grawe F, Geyer T, Kaiser CG, Haag F, Rübenthaler J, Froelich MF. Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1161738. [PMID: 37554160 PMCID: PMC10405934 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1161738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2023] [Accepted: 07/07/2023] [Indexed: 08/10/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moritz L. Schnitzer
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Niklas von Münchhausen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Gloria Biechele
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jasmin Runtemund
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Freba Grawe
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Thomas Geyer
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Clemens G. Kaiser
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Florian Haag
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Johannes Rübenthaler
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Matthias F. Froelich
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schnitzer ML, Buchner J, Biechele G, Grawe F, Ingenerf M, von Münchhausen N, Kaiser CG, Kunz WG, Froelich MF, Schmid-Tannwald C, Rübenthaler J. Economic evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI and CE-CT in selection of colorectal liver metastases eligible for ablation – A cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Radiol 2023; 163:110803. [PMID: 37004464 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2023] [Revised: 03/23/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2023] [Indexed: 04/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Colorectal cancers (CRC) are among the world's most prevailing cancer entities. In a third of all cases, the patients have already developed distant metastases - mainly in the liver - at the time of detection. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) can be treated by surgical resection or, as is possible in most cases, by percutaneous ablation. For selecting the liver metastases eligible for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or microwave ablation (MWA), the common imaging modalities are magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT). This study aims to evaluate those imaging modalities for selecting liver lesions eligible for ablation according to their long-term cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Markov model was applied, calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and accumulative costs for every diagnostic strategy, according to predefined input parameters obtained from published research. Further, sensitivity analyses were executed to prove the certainty of the calculations by running Monte-Carlo simulations with 30,000 reiterations. The Willingness-to-pay (WTP) is at $ 100,000. All calculations are based on the U.S. healthcare system. RESULTS CE-CT caused cumulative costs of $ 31,940.98 and 8,99 QALYs, whereas MRI caused $ 32,070.83 and 9,01 QALYs. PET/CT caused cumulative costs of $ 33,013.21 and 8,99 QALYs. CONCLUSION In conclusion, according to our analysis, MRI is the most cost-effective strategy for detecting liver metastases eligible for ablation and therefore should be seen as the gold standard.
Collapse
|
3
|
Gassert FG, Ziegelmayer S, Luitjens J, Gassert FT, Tollens F, Rink J, Makowski MR, Rübenthaler J, Froelich MF. Additional MRI for initial M-staging in pancreatic cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur Radiol 2021; 32:2448-2456. [PMID: 34837511 PMCID: PMC8921086 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08356-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2021] [Revised: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Pancreatic cancer is portrayed to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death within the next years. Potentially complicating surgical resection emphasizes the importance of an accurate TNM classification. In particular, the failure to detect features for non-resectability has profound consequences on patient outcomes and economic costs due to incorrect indication for resection. In the detection of liver metastases, contrast-enhanced MRI showed high sensitivity and specificity; however, the cost-effectiveness compared to the standard of care imaging remains unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze whether additional MRI of the liver is a cost-effective approach compared to routinely acquired contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in the initial staging of pancreatic cancer. METHODS A decision model based on Markov simulation was developed to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs of the diagnostic modalities. Model input parameters were assessed based on evidence from recent literature. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set to $100,000/QALY. To evaluate model uncertainty, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, the model yielded a total cost of $185,597 and an effectiveness of 2.347 QALYs for CE-MR/CT and $187,601 and 2.337 QALYs for CE-CT respectively. With a net monetary benefit (NMB) of $49,133, CE-MR/CT is shown to be dominant over CE-CT with a NMB of $46,117. Deterministic and probabilistic survival analysis showed model robustness for varying input parameters. CONCLUSION Based on our results, combined CE-MR/CT can be regarded as a cost-effective imaging strategy for the staging of pancreatic cancer. KEY POINTS • Additional MRI of the liver for initial staging of pancreatic cancer results in lower total costs and higher effectiveness. • The economic model showed high robustness for varying input parameters.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix G Gassert
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany.
| | - Sebastian Ziegelmayer
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany
| | - Johanna Luitjens
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Florian T Gassert
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany
| | - Fabian Tollens
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Johann Rink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Marcus R Makowski
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany
| | - Johannes Rübenthaler
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Matthias F Froelich
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yamamoto M, Yoshida M, Furuse J, Sano K, Ohtsuka M, Yamashita S, Beppu T, Iwashita Y, Wada K, Nakajima TE, Sakamoto K, Hayano K, Mori Y, Asai K, Matsuyama R, Hirashita T, Hibi T, Sakai N, Tabata T, Kawakami H, Takeda H, Mizukami T, Ozaka M, Ueno M, Naito Y, Okano N, Ueno T, Hijioka S, Shikata S, Ukai T, Strasberg S, Sarr MG, Jagannath P, Hwang TL, Han HS, Yoon YS, Wang HJ, Luo SC, Adam R, Gimenez M, Scatton O, Oh DY, Takada T. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of liver metastases from extrahepatic primary cancers 2021. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2020; 28:1-25. [PMID: 33200538 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2020] [Revised: 10/30/2020] [Accepted: 11/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors. METHODS Eight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS The eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two. A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS These guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher-quality evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masakazu Yamamoto
- Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masahiro Yoshida
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic and Gastrointestinal Surgery, International University of Health and Welfare, School of Medicine, Ichikawa, Japan
| | - Junji Furuse
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kyorin University Faculty of Medicine, Mitaka, Japan
| | - Keiji Sano
- Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masayuki Ohtsuka
- Department of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Shingo Yamashita
- Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Toru Beppu
- Department of Surgery, Yamaga City Medical Center, Kumamoto, Japan
| | - Yukio Iwashita
- Department of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan
| | - Keita Wada
- Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takako Eguchi Nakajima
- Department of Clinical Oncology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.,Kyoto Innovation Center for Next Generation Clinical Trials and iPS Cell Therapy, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Katsunori Sakamoto
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic and Breast Surgery, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan
| | - Koichi Hayano
- Department of Frontier Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Yasuhisa Mori
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Koji Asai
- Department of Surgery, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ryusei Matsuyama
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokoama, Japan
| | - Teijiro Hirashita
- Department of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan
| | - Taizo Hibi
- Department of Pediatric Surgery and Transplantation, Kumamoto University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto, Japan
| | - Nozomu Sakai
- Department of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Tsutomu Tabata
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hisato Kawakami
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Takeda
- Department of Clinical Oncology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan
| | - Takuro Mizukami
- Department of Clinical Oncology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan
| | - Masato Ozaka
- Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Makoto Ueno
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Medical Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Japan
| | - Yoichi Naito
- Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
| | - Naohiro Okano
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kyorin University Faculty of Medicine, Mitaka, Japan
| | - Takayuki Ueno
- Breast Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Susumu Hijioka
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Tomohiko Ukai
- Division of Public Health, Osaka Institute of Public Health, Higashinari, Japan
| | - Steven Strasberg
- Section of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | | | | | - Tsann-Long Hwang
- Division of General Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Ho-Seong Han
- Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo-Seok Yoon
- Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | | | - Shao-Ciao Luo
- Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - René Adam
- AP HP Paul Brousse Hospital, University Paris Sud, Villejuif, France
| | - Mariano Gimenez
- Docencia Asistencia Investigación en Cirugía Invasiva Mínima Foundation, General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, University of Buenos Aires, Viamonte, Argentina.,Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, Strasbourg, France
| | - Olivier Scatton
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, APHP Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne Université, CRSA, Paris, France
| | - Do-Youn Oh
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tadahiro Takada
- Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bird JR, Brahm GL, Fung C, Sebastian S, Kirkpatrick IDC. Recommendations for the Management of Incidental Hepatobiliary Findings in Adults: Endorsement and Adaptation of the 2017 and 2013 ACR Incidental Findings Committee White Papers by the Canadian Association of Radiologists Incidental Findings Working Group. Can Assoc Radiol J 2020; 71:437-447. [DOI: 10.1177/0846537120928349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
The Canadian Association of Radiologists Incidental Findings Working Group consists of both academic subspecialty and general radiologists and is tasked with adapting and expanding upon the American College of Radiology incidental findings white papers to more closely apply to Canadian practice patterns, particularly more comprehensively dealing with the role of ultrasound and pursuing more cost-effective approaches to the workup of incidental findings without compromising patient care. Presented here are the 2020 Canadian guidelines for the management of hepatobiliary incidental findings. Topics covered include initial assessment of hepatic steatosis and cirrhosis, the workup of incidental liver masses identified on ultrasound and computed tomography (with algorithms presented), incidental gallbladder findings (wall thickening, calcification, and polyps), and management of incidental biliary dilatation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffery R. Bird
- Department of Medical Imaging, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
| | - Gary L. Brahm
- Department of Medical Imaging, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christopher Fung
- Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Sunit Sebastian
- Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Xu F, Tang B, Jin TQ, Dai CL. Current status of surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases. World J Clin Cases 2018; 6:716-734. [PMID: 30510936 PMCID: PMC6264988 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i14.716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2018] [Revised: 09/14/2018] [Accepted: 10/22/2018] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Liver metastasis (LM) is one of the major causes of death in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Approximately 60% of CRC patients develop LM during the course of their illness. About 85% of these patients have unresectable disease at the time of presentation. Surgical resection is currently the only curative treatment for patients with colorectal LM (CRLM). In recent years, with the help of modern multimodality therapy including systemic chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, the outcomes of CRLM treatment have significantly improved. This article summarizes the current status of surgical treatment of CRLM including evaluation of resectability, treatment for resectable LM, conversion therapy and liver transplantation for unresectable cases, liver resection for recurrent CRLM and elderly patients, and surgery for concomitant hepatic and extra-hepatic metastatic disease (EHMD). We believe that with the help of modern multimodality therapy, an aggressive oncosurgical approach should be implemented as it has the possibility of achieving a cure, even when EHMD is present in patients with CRLM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Feng Xu
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Splenic Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Bin Tang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Splenic Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Tian-Qiang Jin
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Splenic Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Province, China
| | - Chao-Liu Dai
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Splenic Surgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Province, China
| |
Collapse
|