Cost-Effectiveness of Low-Field Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance in Glioma Surgery.
Karnofsky performance status
cost-effectiveness
glioma
incremental cost-effective ratio
intraoperative magnetic resonance
progression-free survival (PFS)
technology assessment
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
23
07
2020
accepted:
09
10
2020
entrez:
23
11
2020
pubmed:
24
11
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Low-field intraoperative magnetic resonance (LF-iMR) has demonstrated a slight increase in the extent of resection of intra-axial tumors while preserving patient`s neurological outcomes. However, whether this improvement is cost-effective or not is still matter of controversy. In this clinical investigation we sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of a LF-iMR in glioma surgery. Patients undergoing LF-iMR guided glioma surgery with gross total resection (GTR) intention were prospectively collected and compared to an historical cohort operated without this technology. Socio-demographic and clinical variables (pre and postoperative KPS; histopathological classification; Extent of resection; postoperative complications; need of re-intervention within the first year and 1-year postoperative survival) were collected and analyzed. Effectiveness variables were assessed in both groups: Postoperative Karnofsky performance status scale (pKPS); overall survival (OS); Progression-free survival (PFS); and a variable accounting for the number of patients with a greater than subtotal resection and same or higher postoperative KPS (R-KPS). All preoperative, procedural and postoperative costs linked to the treatment were considered for the cost-effectiveness analysis (diagnostic procedures, prosthesis, operating time, hospitalization, consumables, LF-iMR device, etc). Deterministic and probabilistic simulations were conducted to evaluate the consistency of our analysis. 50 patients were operated with LF-iMR assistance, while 146 belonged to the control group. GTR rate, pKPS, R-KPS, PFS, and 1-year OS were respectively 13,8% (not significative), 7 points (p < 0.05), 17% (p < 0.05), 38 days (p < 0.05), and 3.7% (not significative) higher in the intervention group. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a mean incremental cost per patient of 789 € in the intervention group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 111 € per additional point of pKPS, 21 € per additional day free of progression, and 46 € per additional percentage point of R-KPS. Glioma patients operated under LF-iMR guidance experience a better functional outcome, higher resection rates, less complications, better PFS rates but similar life expectancy compared to conventional techniques. In terms of efficiency, LF-iMR is very close to be a dominant technology in terms of R-KPS, PFS and pKPS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33224884
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.586679
pmc: PMC7667256
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
586679Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Garcia-Garcia, García-Lorenzo, Ramos, Gonzalez-Sanchez, Culebras, Restovic, Alcover, Pons, Torales, Reyes, Sampietro-Colom and Enseñat.
Références
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Jul;170:165-169
pubmed: 29803727
World Neurosurg X. 2019 Feb 20;3:100022
pubmed: 31225516
J Neurooncol. 2015 Sep;124(3):345-56
pubmed: 26297044
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1204
pubmed: 18824485
Lancet. 2014 Feb 15;383(9917):614-21
pubmed: 24268105
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 22;11(12):e0168264
pubmed: 28005980
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;107:15-27
pubmed: 30529899
Neurosurgery. 2008 Apr;62(4):753-64; discussion 264-6
pubmed: 18496181
CNS Oncol. 2017 Oct;6(4):307-313
pubmed: 28990795
Health Econ. 2018 Apr;27(4):746-761
pubmed: 29282798
World Neurosurg. 2017 Jun;102:102-110
pubmed: 28254595
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Nov;34(5):1022-30
pubmed: 22002753
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 22;1:CD012788
pubmed: 29355914
J Neurosurg Sci. 2019 Dec;63(6):625-632
pubmed: 31355623
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28;(1):CD009685
pubmed: 24474579
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb;15(2):112-125
pubmed: 29158591
J Neurosurg. 2017 Oct;127(4):857-866
pubmed: 27885950
Surg Neurol Int. 2014 May 15;5:70
pubmed: 24991473
Neurotherapeutics. 2009 Jul;6(3):478-86
pubmed: 19560738
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018 Nov 30;23(3):308-316
pubmed: 30544362
Neuro Oncol. 2012 Sep;14 Suppl 4:iv55-64
pubmed: 23095831
Int J Surg. 2019 Mar;63:90-97
pubmed: 30742934
Neurosurgery. 2006 Jul;59(1):105-14; discussion 105-14
pubmed: 16823306
Methods Mol Biol. 2009;472:323-42
pubmed: 19107440
CNS Oncol. 2017 Jan;6(1):29-43
pubmed: 27628854
Neurocirugia (Astur). 2017 May - Jun;28(3):103-110
pubmed: 27751711
Front Neurol. 2012 Oct 18;3:140
pubmed: 23087667
Neurosurgery. 2014 Aug;61 Suppl 1:145-54
pubmed: 25032543
Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;105:437-50
pubmed: 22230511
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 1;27(7):1082-6
pubmed: 19139429
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Oct;12(11):997-1003
pubmed: 21868284
World Neurosurg. 2018 Apr;112:e269-e277
pubmed: 29337167
Brain Sci. 2017 Dec 25;8(1):
pubmed: 29295569
Eur J Neurol. 2010 Sep;17(9):1124-33
pubmed: 20718851
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Apr;29(2):117-22
pubmed: 23587340
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2003;85:55-63
pubmed: 12570138
Neurosurgery. 2008 Mar;62(3):564-76; discussion 564-76
pubmed: 18425006
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2011;109:49-53
pubmed: 20960320
World Neurosurg. 2019 Oct;130:e206-e212
pubmed: 31203073
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2014 Apr;16(4):284
pubmed: 24595756
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1105-12
pubmed: 19782876