Search

Objective: Patients with limited-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) undergo frequent posttreatment surveillance CT examinations, raising concerns about the cumulative magnitude of radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to project radiation-induced cancer risks relative to competing risks of HL and account for the differential timing of each., Materials and Methods: We adapted a previously developed Markov model to project lifetime mortality risks and life expectancy losses due to HL versus radiation-induced cancers in HL patients undergoing surveillance CT. In the base case, we modeled 35-year-old men and women undergoing seven CT examinations of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis over 5 years. Radiation-induced cancer risks and deaths for 17 organ systems were modeled using an organ-specific approach, accounting for specific anatomy exposed at CT. Cohorts of 20-, 50-, and 65-year-old men and women were evaluated in secondary analyses. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the uncertainty of radiation risk projections., Results: For 35-year-old adults, we projected 3324/100,000 (men) and 3345/100,000 (women) deaths from recurrent lymphoma and 245/100,000 (men, 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 121-369) and 317/100,000 (women, 95% UI: 202-432) radiation-induced cancer deaths. Discrepancies in life expectancy losses between HL (428 days in men, 482 days in women) and radiation-induced cancers (11.6 days in men, [95% UI: 5.7-17.5], 15.6 days in women [95% UI: 9.8-21.4]) were proportionately greater because of the delayed timing of radiation-induced cancers relative to recurrent HL. Deaths and life expectancy losses from radiation-induced cancers were highest in the youngest cohorts., Conclusion: Given the low rate of radiation-induced cancer deaths associated with CT surveillance, modest CT benefits would justify its use in patients with limited-stage HL.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a treatment strategy for symptomatic uterine fibroids that uses MRI-guided focused ultrasound as a first-line therapy relative to uterine artery embolization (UAE) or hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost effectiveness of three first-line treatment strategies: MRI-guided focused ultrasound, UAE, and hysterectomy. Treatment-specific short- and long-term utilities, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were incorporated, allowing us to conduct an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, using a societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY to designate a strategy as cost effective. Sensitivity analyses were subsequently performed on all key parameters. RESULTS. In the base-case analysis, UAE as a first-line treatment of symptomatic fibroids was the most effective and expensive strategy (22.75 QALYs; $22,968), followed by MRI-guided focused ultrasound (22.73 QALYs; $20,252) and hysterectomy (22.54 QALYs; $11,253). MRI-guided focused ultrasound was cost effective relative to hysterectomy, with an associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $47,891/QALY. The ICER of UAE relative to MRI-guided focused ultrasound was $234,565/QALY, exceeding the WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, therefore rendering MRI-guided focused ultrasound also cost effective relative to UAE. In sensitivity analyses, results were robust to changes in most parameters but were sensitive to changes in probabilities of recurrence, symptom relief, and quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSION. First-line treatment of eligible women with MRI-guided focused ultra-sound is a cost-effective noninvasive strategy. For those not eligible for MRI-guided focused ultra-sound, UAE remains a cost-effective option. These recommendations integrate both the short- and long-term decrements in quality of life associated with the specific treatment modalities.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening strategies in which MR imaging and screen-film mammography were used, alone and in combination, in women with BRCA1 mutations., Materials and Methods: Because this study did not involve primary data collection from individual patients, institutional review board approval was not needed. By using a simulation model, we compared three annual screening strategies for a cohort of 25-year-old BRCA1 mutation carriers, as follows: (a) screen-film mammography, (b) MR imaging, and (c) combined MR imaging and screen-film mammography (combined screening). The model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, existing databases, and calibration. Costs (2007 U.S. dollars) and quality-of-life adjustments were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates and the medical literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of uncertainty in parameter estimates on model results., Results: In the base-case analysis, annual combined screening was most effective (44.62 QALYs), and had the highest cost ($110973), followed by annual MR imaging alone (44.50 QALYs, $108641), and annual mammography alone (44.46 QALYs, $100336). Adding annual MR imaging to annual mammographic screening cost $69125 for each additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that, when the screening MR imaging cost increased to $960 (base case, $577), or breast cancer risk by age 70 years decreased below 58% (base case, 65%), or the sensitivity of combined screening decreased below 76% (base case, 94%), the cost of adding MR imaging to mammography exceeded $100000 per QALY., Conclusion: Annual combined screening provides the greatest life expectancy and is likely cost-effective when the value placed on gaining an additional QALY is in the range of $50000-$100000., Supplemental Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09091086/-/DC1., ((c) RSNA, 2010)