Diagnostic Workup for Patients with Solid Renal Masses: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
CEUS
cost-effectiveness
solid renal masses
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Apr 2022
29 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
30
03
2022
revised:
26
04
2022
accepted:
27
04
2022
entrez:
14
5
2022
pubmed:
15
5
2022
medline:
15
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For patients with solid renal masses, a precise differentiation between malignant and benign tumors is crucial for forward treatment management. Even though MRI and CT are often deemed as the gold standard in the diagnosis of solid renal masses, CEUS may also offer very high sensitivity in detection. The aim of this study therefore was to evaluate the effectiveness of CEUS from an economical point of view. A decision-making model based on a Markov model assessed expenses and utilities (in QALYs) associated with CEUS, MRI and CT. The utilized parameters were acquired from published research. Further, a Monte Carlo simulation-based deterministic sensitivity analysis of utilized variables with 30,000 repetitions was executed. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) is at USD 100,000/QALY. In the baseline, CT caused overall expenses of USD 10,285.58 and an efficacy of 11.95 QALYs, whereas MRI caused overall expenses of USD 7407.70 and an efficacy of 12.25. Further, CEUS caused overall expenses of USD 5539.78, with an efficacy of 12.44. Consequently, CT and MRI were dominated by CEUS, and CEUS remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses. CEUS should be considered as a cost-effective imaging strategy for the initial diagnostic workup and assessment of solid renal masses compared to CT and MRI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
For patients with solid renal masses, a precise differentiation between malignant and benign tumors is crucial for forward treatment management. Even though MRI and CT are often deemed as the gold standard in the diagnosis of solid renal masses, CEUS may also offer very high sensitivity in detection. The aim of this study therefore was to evaluate the effectiveness of CEUS from an economical point of view.
METHODS
METHODS
A decision-making model based on a Markov model assessed expenses and utilities (in QALYs) associated with CEUS, MRI and CT. The utilized parameters were acquired from published research. Further, a Monte Carlo simulation-based deterministic sensitivity analysis of utilized variables with 30,000 repetitions was executed. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) is at USD 100,000/QALY.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the baseline, CT caused overall expenses of USD 10,285.58 and an efficacy of 11.95 QALYs, whereas MRI caused overall expenses of USD 7407.70 and an efficacy of 12.25. Further, CEUS caused overall expenses of USD 5539.78, with an efficacy of 12.44. Consequently, CT and MRI were dominated by CEUS, and CEUS remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CEUS should be considered as a cost-effective imaging strategy for the initial diagnostic workup and assessment of solid renal masses compared to CT and MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35565365
pii: cancers14092235
doi: 10.3390/cancers14092235
pmc: PMC9104211
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
BJU Int. 2008 Nov;102(10):1376-80
pubmed: 18727618
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006 Sep;32(9):1369-75
pubmed: 16965977
Clin Radiol. 2009 May;64(5):517-22
pubmed: 19348848
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103
pubmed: 27623463
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013 Jul-Aug;19(4):304-11
pubmed: 23439256
BJU Int. 2020 Jul;126(1):114-123
pubmed: 32232920
Ultrasonography. 2019 Oct;38(4):278-288
pubmed: 31230431
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009 Aug;47(8):893-900
pubmed: 19597745
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jan;27(1):115-124
pubmed: 28917029
Mod Pathol. 2002 Nov;15(11):1126-30
pubmed: 12429790
J Urol. 2021 Aug;206(2):209-218
pubmed: 34115531
Kidney Cancer. 2018 Aug 1;2(2):79-93
pubmed: 30740580
Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 May;27(5):612-24
pubmed: 12717246
J Manag Care Pharm. 2011 Oct;17(8):610-20
pubmed: 21942302
Radiographics. 2017 Nov-Dec;37(7):2026-2042
pubmed: 29131770
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Feb;99:40-54
pubmed: 29362150
Scand J Urol. 2016 Dec;50(6):445-451
pubmed: 27609413
Ultraschall Med. 2020 Dec;41(6):668-674
pubmed: 31597180
J Urol. 2015 Aug;194(2):316-22
pubmed: 25758610
Br J Radiol. 2017 Aug;90(1077):20170077
pubmed: 28590813
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Aug;105:41-48
pubmed: 30017297
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Aug 04;12(8):
pubmed: 32759819
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Aug;40(6):1982-96
pubmed: 25588715
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Apr;12(7):iii, ix-x, 1-175
pubmed: 18373906
Eur Urol. 2019 Jan;75(1):74-84
pubmed: 30243799
Ultrasonography. 2019 Apr;38(2):181-187
pubmed: 30531649
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 9;8(1):5686
pubmed: 29632347
Clin Radiol. 2017 Sep;72(9):708-721
pubmed: 28592361
Radiology. 2012 Nov;265(2):468-77
pubmed: 23012463
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Apr;17(16):1-243
pubmed: 23611316
Ultraschall Med. 2021 Aug;42(4):411-417
pubmed: 32052386
Clin Exp Nephrol. 2015 Aug;19(4):606-15
pubmed: 25351822
Abdom Imaging. 2014 Apr;39(2):358-87
pubmed: 24446014
J Urol. 2021 Aug;206(2):199-208
pubmed: 34115547
Clin Radiol. 2015 Mar;70(3):304-16
pubmed: 25472466
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Sep 30;12(10):
pubmed: 33007933
Radiographics. 2007 Mar-Apr;27(2):325-39; discussion 339-40
pubmed: 17374856
Eur Urol. 2015 May;67(5):913-24
pubmed: 25616710
Eur Radiol. 2018 Nov;28(11):4542-4549
pubmed: 29744641
Med J Aust. 2020 Jul;213(2):72-73
pubmed: 32598481