The Economic Value of MR-Imaging for Uveal Melanoma.
MRI
eye diseases
ocular tumour
oncological imaging
radiotherapy
ultrasound
uveal melanoma
Journal
Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
ISSN: 1177-5467
Titre abrégé: Clin Ophthalmol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101321512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
13
11
2019
accepted:
03
03
2020
entrez:
20
5
2020
pubmed:
20
5
2020
medline:
20
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intra-ocular tumour. Treatment is determined by tumour size and location. Generally, smaller tumours are eligible for brachytherapy unless they are located close to posterior pole. Larger tumours are enucleated or undergo proton beam therapy (PBT), which is more expensive than brachytherapy and less available. Accuracy of tumour size determination is critical for accurate planning and delivery of treatment, particularly to ensure tumour coverage, critical structure sparing, and for the choice of treatment modality. This is particularly the case for tumour dimensions that are close to the cut-off point for a specific type of treatment: in the case of the brachytherapy protocol at our institution, 6-8 mm. Ultrasound is conventionally used, but magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has recently become an additional available tool. Although more expensive, it enables more accurate measurements and is particularly useful in combination with clinical fundus examination, fundus photography and ultrasound. Our aim in this paper was to determine the economic value of MRI for UM treatment. We retrospectively analysed 60 patients' MRI scans acquired as part of a study or for clinical care. For each patient, we assessed whether the extra cost of an MRI generated economic benefit or change in optimal treatment. MRI indicated a smaller tumour prominence than US in 10% of patients with intermediate tumour size, resulting in a change from PBT to brachytherapy. The costs of MRI, €200-€1000, are significantly lower than the higher costs of PBT compared to brachytherapy, €24,000 difference. In addition, the annual total economic burden of severe vision impairment associated with eye removal is €10,000. Furthermore, for patients where ultrasound was impossible due to previous surgery, MRI enabled eye-preserving treatment. An additional MRI for specific patients with UM improves economic value as it enables less expensive treatment in a sufficient percentage of patients to compensate for the MRI costs. Value is increased in terms of quality of care as it enables for some a treatment option which spares more vision.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32425499
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S238405
pii: 238405
pmc: PMC7196205
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1135-1143Informations de copyright
© 2020 Grech Fonk et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr Teresa A Ferreira and Dr. Jan-Willem M Beenakker report grants from Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, Protons4VISION, project number 14654), during the conduct of the study. Dr Jan-Willem M Beenakker reports non-financial support from Philips Healthcare during the conduct of the study. The authors report no other possible conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
NMR Biomed. 2013 Dec;26(12):1864-9
pubmed: 24123279
Brachytherapy. 2017 Nov - Dec;16(6):1225-1231
pubmed: 28966081
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 May 1;86(1):18-26
pubmed: 23040219
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017 Sep/Oct;41(5):823-827
pubmed: 28448404
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2017 Sep;26 Joining forces for better cancer registration in Europe:S176-S182
pubmed: 28914690
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Feb;174:169-174
pubmed: 27889503
Cancer. 2016 Aug 1;122(15):2299-312
pubmed: 26991400
Doc Ophthalmol. 1989 Sep;73(1):93-100
pubmed: 2698336
Brachytherapy. 2014 Jan-Feb;13(1):1-14
pubmed: 24373763
Ophthalmology. 2002 Dec;109(12):2197-206
pubmed: 12466159
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013 Jun 15;6(7):1230-44
pubmed: 23826405
Ophthalmology. 2020 Apr;127(4S):S148-S157
pubmed: 32200815
Magn Reson Med. 2001 Aug;46(2):412-6
pubmed: 11477648
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Feb 21;10:1758834018757175
pubmed: 29497459
Invest Radiol. 2015 May;50(5):309-21
pubmed: 25612144
Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2018 Apr;4(3):145-151
pubmed: 29765944
Surg Clin North Am. 2014 Oct;94(5):989-1002, vii-viii
pubmed: 25245963
Exp Eye Res. 2014 Aug;125:89-94
pubmed: 24928314
Br J Ophthalmol. 1990 Mar;74(3):183-5
pubmed: 2182105
Neuroradiology. 2015 Aug;57(8):833-40
pubmed: 26022354
Med Phys. 2005 Nov;32(11):3355-62
pubmed: 16372413
NMR Biomed. 2018 Mar;31(3):
pubmed: 29315932
Melanoma Res. 2019 Dec;29(6):655-659
pubmed: 30664105
MAGMA. 2016 Jun;29(3):571-7
pubmed: 26915081
Neuroradiology. 2018 Dec;60(12):1253-1266
pubmed: 30310941
Invest Radiol. 2014 May;49(5):260-70
pubmed: 24651662
PLoS One. 2015 May 18;10(5):e0127814
pubmed: 25993284
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Jul;78(1):165-171
pubmed: 27476861
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Nov;68:106-113
pubmed: 27741435
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Jan;35(1):170-5
pubmed: 23868150
Br J Ophthalmol. 2013 Jul;97(7):804-11
pubmed: 23645818
Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2013 Jul;27(3):151-7
pubmed: 24227980
Pediatr Radiol. 2012 Jan;42(1):2-14
pubmed: 21850471
Clin Trials. 2011 Oct;8(5):661-73
pubmed: 22013172
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Nov;30(5):924-32
pubmed: 19856406
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Mar 15;55(4):867-80
pubmed: 12605964
J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2019 Aug;11(4):392-397
pubmed: 31523242
Eye (Lond). 2015 Sep;29(9):1194-8
pubmed: 26160531
BMJ Open. 2013 Nov 07;3(11):e003471
pubmed: 24202057