Search

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in diabetic patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD)., Design: A state-transition model from a healthcare payer perspective on a lifetime horizon., Setting: Japan., Population: A hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old diabetic patients with MASLD risk-stratified according to degree of obesity and progression to cirrhosis. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver (MASL), metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and MASH cirrhosis are progressive manifestations of this specific type of liver disease., Intervention: Abdominal ultrasound (US), US with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), US with AFP and lectin-reactive alpha-fetoprotein (AFP-L3), CT, extracellular contrast-media-enhanced MRI (ECCM-MRI), gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) and no screening., Main Outcome Measure: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), early-stage HCC cases, advanced-stage HCC cases and HCC-related deaths., Results: EOB-MRI is the most cost-effective screening method for non-obese diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis and for obese diabetic patients with MASH and MASH cirrhosis. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to HCC incidence in non-obese diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis and obese diabetic patients with MASH, and the adherence rate of HCC screening in obese diabetic patients with MASH. When the semiannual HCC incidence was between 0.008 and 0.0138 in non-obese diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis, US with AFP was more cost-effective than EOB-MRI. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that EOB-MRI was 50.7%, 96.0% and 99.9% cost-effective in obese diabetic patients with MASH and non-obese diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis, and obese diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis at a willingness-to-pay level of $50 000 per QALY gained. Compared with no screening in 100 000 non-obese diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis and obese diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis, EOB-MRI reduced total costs by US$69 million and by US$142 million, increased lifetime effectiveness by 12 546 QALYs and by 15 815 QALYs, detected 17 873 and 21 014 early-stage HCC cases, and averted 2068 and 2471 HCC-related deaths, respectively., Conclusions: Of all HCC screening methods for diabetic patients with MASH cirrhosis, EOB-MRI yields the greatest cost-saving with the highest QALYs, detects the greatest number of early-stage HCC cases and averts the greatest number of advanced-stage HCC cases and HCC-related deaths. The findings provide important insights for the precise implementation of risk-stratified HCC surveillance to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life in diabetic patients with MASLD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to assess cost-effectiveness of abdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and no screening for pancreatic cancer screening in familial high-risk individuals (HRIs)., Methods: We developed decision trees with Markov models for a hypothetical cohort of familial HRIs at the age of 50 year using a healthcare sector perspective and a lifetime horizon. Main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results: In a base-case analysis, abdominal ultrasound was the most cost-effective (US $11,035, 17.4875 QALYs). Magnetic resonance imaging yielded the best benefits. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the incidence of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound was more cost-effective than abdominal ultrasound when the incidence of pancreatic cancer was greater than 0.008 and under 0.016. Magnetic resonance imaging was more cost-effective than endoscopic ultrasound when the incidence of pancreatic cancer was greater than 0.016. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation for 10,000 trials demonstrated that abdominal ultrasound was cost-effective 76% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000/QALY gained., Conclusions: Abdominal ultrasound is the most cost-effective and recommended for pancreatic cancer screening in familial HRIs in Japan. Evaluating the risk of pancreatic cancer among familial HRIs as a target for screening is significant.

To assess accreditation for ultrasound (US) throughout the world, a questionnaire was sent to 34 doctors in 34 countries; 23 of them responded. Clinical specialties are approved by law in the large majority of countries, except for a few countries like the USA or Japan. The position of "Sonologist", who is a specialist for US, has not been established in any of the countries with the exception of China. In some countries, some kinds of technicians are permitted to be involved in US after training and the recipients of such accreditation are usually called "Sonographers." Accreditation systems for US in various countries were classified into three grades, namely, "Should," "Would" and "Might," according to differences in regulations, education and certification. In 19 out of 23 countries, grading fell into the "Might" grade, in which accreditation is thought to be no more than a matter of morals. It is concluded that a respective accreditation system suitable to the country would be constructed independently.