Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Freehand versus 3-Dimensional Template Mapping Biopsy Using a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Device in Biopsy Naïve Men

PURPOSE

Targeted prostate biopsy devices include a 3-dimensional digital template grid to guide systematic biopsy locations. Following a template could better ensure uniform and well distributed sampling of the prostate compared to the traditional freehand biopsy approach, possibly decreasing the chance of false-negative biopsy. Thus, we determined cancer detection rates obtained by conventional freehand systematic sampling vs template mapping sampling using a magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men who underwent first line conventional or image guided prostate biopsy were identified retrospectively in an institutional review board approved protocol. Excluded from study were men with prior biopsy or treatment or fewer than 10 cores taken. Targeted cores obtained by image guided biopsy were censored from analysis to simulate systematic template biopsy. The resulting cancer detection rate was compared to that of conventional biopsy.

RESULTS

We identified 1,582 patients between 2006 and 2014 who met the criteria for analysis, including 1,052 who underwent conventional biopsy and 530 who underwent template biopsy with a magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion device. Patient age, prostate specific antigen and the number of systematic cores were the same in the 2 groups. Template biopsy detected any prostate cancer in 257 of 530 men (48.5%) and clinically significant cancer in 196 (37.0%) while conventional biopsy detected any cancer in 432 of 1,052 (41.0%) (p=0.005) and clinically significant cancer in 308 (29.2%) (p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Template mapping systematic biopsy detected more prostate cancer than conventional sampling in biopsy naïve men. It is a promising cost-effective alternative to magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy as an upfront screening tool.

Early economic evaluation of MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) and epilepsy surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy

Background

MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) is a new minimally invasive treatment for temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), with limited effectiveness data. It is unknown if the cost savings associated with shorter hospitalization could offset the high equipment cost of MRgLITT. We examined the cost-utility of MRgLITT versus surgery for TLE from healthcare payer perspective, and the value of additional research to inform policy decision on MRgLITT.

Methods

We developed a microsimulation model to evaluate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MRgLITT versus surgery in TLE, assuming life-time horizon and 1.5% discount rate. Model inputs were derived from the literature. We conducted threshold and sensitivity analyses to examine parameter uncertainties, and expected value of partial perfect information analyses to evaluate the expected monetary benefit of eliminating uncertainty on probabilities associated with MRgLITT.

Results

MRgLITT yielded 0.08 more QALYs and cost $7,821 higher than surgery, with ICER of $94,350/QALY. Influential parameters that could change model outcomes include probabilities of becoming seizure-free from disabling seizures state and returning to disabling seizures from seizure-free state 5 years after surgery and MRgLITT, cost of MRgLITT disposable equipment, and utilities of disabling seizures and seizure-free states of surgery and MRgLITT. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed surgery was preferred in more than 50% of iterations. The expected monetary benefit of eliminating uncertainty for probabilities associated with MRgLITT was higher than for utilities associated with MRgLITT.

Conclusions

MRgLITT resulted in more QALYs gained and higher costs compared to surgery in the base-case. The model was sensitive to variations in the cost of MRgLITT disposable equipment. There is value in conducting more research to reduce uncertainty on the probabilities and utilities of MRgLITT, but priority should be given to research focusing on improving the precision of estimates on effectiveness of MRgLITT.

Comparisons between magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy and standard biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A prospective cohort study

Prostate-specific antigen is not useful for detection of prostate cancer in Chinese men. The major problems in prostate cancer patients are overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The objective of the study was to test the hypothesis that targeted biopsy is an accurate diagnostic tool for prostate cancer detection than standard biopsy in Chinese men.Total, 998 patients whom multiparticulate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging had revealed at least 1 lesion in the prostate were included in a cohort. Patients were subjected to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy followed US-guided biopsy. Benefits of a diagnostic test were evaluated by decision curve analysis. Patients who were diagnosed as having prostate cancer by either of biopsies were subjected to radical prostatectomies followed by whole-mounted pathology (n = 578). Spearman rank correlation was performed between the biopsy results and the subtype of prostate cancer at 99% of confidence level.With respect to whole-mounted pathology, for US-guided biopsy, MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy, and combined data of both biopsies, sensitivities were 0.973, 0.983, and 0.973 and accuracies were 0.837, 0.91, and 0.917, respectively. MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy (P = .165) and combined data of both biopsies (P = .182) had the same specificity to whole-mount pathology. However, a US-guided biopsy had not the same specificity to whole-mount pathology (P = .0003). Decision-making zones for radical prostatectomy of different biopsies were in the order of combined data of both biopsies >MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy >US-guided biopsy.Only the targeted biopsy is recommended for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound Neurosurgery for Essential Tremor: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment option for medication-refractory essential tremor is invasive neurosurgery. A new, noninvasive alternative is magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) neurosurgery. We aimed to determine the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of MRgFUS neurosurgery for the treatment of moderate to severe, medication-refractory essential tremor in Ontario. We also spoke with people with essential tremor to gain an understanding of their experiences and thoughts regarding treatment options, including MRgFUS neurosurgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the clinical literature published up to April 11, 2017, that examined MRgFUS neurosurgery alone or compared with other interventions for the treatment of moderate to severe, medication-refractory essential tremor. We assessed the risk of bias of each study and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic review of the economic literature and created Markov cohort models to assess the cost-effectiveness of MRgFUS neurosurgery compared with other treatment options, including no surgery. We also estimated the budget impact of publicly funding MRgFUS neurosurgery in Ontario for the next 5 years. To contextualize the potential value of MRgFUS neurosurgery as a treatment option for essential tremor, we spoke with people with essential tremor and their families.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria for the clinical evidence review. In noncomparative studies, MRgFUS neurosurgery was found to significantly improve tremor severity and quality of life and to significantly reduce functional disability (GRADE: very low). It was also found to be significantly more effective than a sham procedure (GRADE: high). We found no significant difference in improvements in tremor severity, functional disability, or quality of life between MRgFUS neurosurgery and deep brain stimulation (GRADE: very low). We found no significant difference in improvement in tremor severity compared with radiofrequency thalamotomy (GRADE: low). MRgFUS neurosurgery has a favourable safety profile.We estimated that MRgFUS neurosurgery has a mean cost of $23,507 and a mean quality-adjusted survival of 3.69 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We also estimated that the mean costs and QALYs of radiofrequency thalamotomy and deep brain stimulation are $14,978 and 3.61 QALYs, and $57,535 and 3.94 QALYs, respectively. For people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery, we estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MRgFUS neurosurgery compared with no surgery as $43,075 per QALY gained. In people eligible for invasive neurosurgery, the ICER of MRgFUS neurosurgery compared with radiofrequency thalamotomy is $109,795 per QALY gained; when deep brain stimulation is compared with MRgFUS neurosurgery, the ICER is $134,259 per QALY gained. Of note however, radiofrequency thalamotomy is performed very infrequently in Ontario. We also estimated that the budget impact of publicly funding MRgFUS neurosurgery in Ontario at the current case load (i.e., 48 cases/year) would be about $1 million per year for the next 5 years.People with essential tremor who had undergone MRgFUS neurosurgery reported positive experiences with the procedure. The tremor reduction they experienced improved their ability to perform activities of daily living and improved their quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

MRgFUS neurosurgery is an effective and generally safe treatment option for moderate to severe, medication-refractory essential tremor. It provides a treatment option for people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery and offers a noninvasive option for all people considering neurosurgery.For people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery, MRgFUS neurosurgery is cost-effective compared with no surgery. In people eligible for invasive neurosurgery, MRgFUS neurosurgery may be one of several reasonable options. Publicly funding MRgFUS neurosurgery for the treatment of moderate to severe, medication-refractory essential tremor in Ontario at the current case load would have a net budget impact of about $1 million per year for the next 5 years.People with essential tremor who had undergone MRgFUS neurosurgery reported positive experiences. They liked that it was a noninvasive procedure and reported a substantial reduction in tremor that resulted in an improvement in their quality of life.

Magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity-focused ultrasound for the treatment of cancer-related pain

Nandita deSouza speaks to Nick Ward, Commissioning Editor: Nandita deSouza speaks about her involvement in the development of high-frequency ultrasound (HiFU) for the treatment of cancer-related pain. Nandita deSouza is a Professor of translational imaging at The Institute of Cancer Research, (ICR, London, UK) and Honorary Consultant at The Royal Marsden Hospital (London, UK). N deSouza is a co-director of the Cancer Research UK Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research Group at the ICR. In this role she coordinates multidisciplinary research projects involving clinical medicine, physics, biochemistry and engineering that are aimed at improving patient care.

Cost comparison of low-field (0.23 T) MRI-guided laser ablation and surgery in the treatment of osteoid osteoma

The purpose of this study was to analyze the costs of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided laser ablation and to compare them with the costs of surgery in the treatment of osteoid osteoma. Seven patients with osteoid osteoma were treated with MRI-guided interstitial laser ablation during 1 year. The reference material consisted of six patients whose osteoid osteoma was treated surgically by either superficial or deep excision with metallic fixation. The costs were analyzed by using activity-based cost accounting. The mean cost of the MRI-guided laser ablation was 2,392 euros and of the excision of superficially located osteoid osteoma 1,807 euros. The cost of excision of deeply located osteoma with metallic fixation was considerably higher (4,996 euros). This was due to the higher material, personnel, and ward costs. The cost of MRI-guided laser ablation of osteoid osteoma was higher than the cost of surgical excision of a superficial osteoma but considerably lower than the cost of excision of a deeply located osteoma where metallic fixation was needed. When the number and mean cost of sick days or days of restricted weight bearing were also included, the cost of MRI-guided laser ablation was lower than the costs of either superficial or deep excision.