1. Economic evaluation of an expert examiner and different ultrasound models in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
- Author
-
Meys, Evelyne M.J., Jeelof, Lara S., Ramaekers, Bram L.T., Dirksen, Carmen D., Kooreman, Loes F.S., Slangen, Brigitte F.M., Kruitwagen, Roy F.P.M., and Van Gorp, Toon
- Subjects
- *
TUMOR risk factors , *ADNEXAL diseases , *BUDGET , *CONFIDENCE intervals , *COST effectiveness , *DECISION trees , *MEDICAL care costs , *OVARIAN tumors , *PROBABILITY theory , *LOGISTIC regression analysis , *DIAGNOSIS ,RESEARCH evaluation - Abstract
The Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) is commonly used to diagnose adnexal masses. The aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the RMI compared with subjective assessment (SA) by an expert and the following novel ultrasound models: - Simple rules (SR) added by SA (SR + SA); - SR with inconclusive results diagnosed as malignant (SR + Mal); - Logistic Regression model 2 (LR2); and - Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were performed from a societal perspective. A decision tree was constructed, and short-term costs and effects were examined in women with adnexal masses. Sensitivity, specificity and the costs of diagnostic strategies were incorporated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as costs/additional percentage of correctly diagnosed patients. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. Effectiveness was highest for SA (90.7% [95% confidence interval = 77.3–100]), with a cost saving of 5.0% (−€398 per patient [−€1403 to 549]) compared with the RMI. The costs of SR + SA were the lowest (€7180 [6072–8436]), resulting in a cost saving of 9.0% (−€709 per patient [−€1628 to 236]) compared with the RMI, with an effectiveness of 89.6% (75.8–100). SR + SA showed the highest probability of being the most cost-effective when willingness-to-pay was <€350 per additional percentage of correctly diagnosed patients. The RMI had low cost-effectiveness probabilities (<3%) and was inferior to SA, SR + SA and LR2. Budget impact in the Netherlands compared with that of the RMI varied between a cost saving of €4.67 million for SR + SA and additional costs of €3.83 million when implementing ADNEX (cut-off: 10%). The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analyses. Although SA is the best strategy in terms of diagnostic accuracy, SR + SA might be preferred from a cost-effectiveness perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF