Recommended 10-Year Follow-Up Strategy for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Radiofrequency Ablation: A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: An optimal follow-up schedule for small (≤3-cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) remains unclear in clinical guidelines. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies in patients with small HCC after RFA. METHODS: In total, 11,243 patients were collected from global institutions to calculate recurrence rates. Subsequently, a Markov model covering a 10-year period was developed to compare 25 surveillance strategies involving different surveillance techniques (computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography [US], and α-fetoprotein [AFP]) and intervals (3 or 6 months). The study endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represented additional cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the values of input parameters to observe the ICER. RESULTS: In a base case analysis, the dominant strategy was CT every 3 months during an initial 2 years, followed by semiannual CT, and then switch to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years (m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP), with an ICER of $68,570.92 compared with the "not followed" strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER consistently remained below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.00. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP was the most cost-effective approach in 95.6% of simulated scenarios at a willingness-to-pay threshold. DISCUSSION: For small HCC after RFA, the recommended follow-up strategy is CT, with scans scheduled every 3 months for the first 2 years, every 6 months thereafter, and transition to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years.

Editor's Choice - Short Term Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation and High Ligation and Stripping for Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence.

OBJECTIVE: Superficial venous incompetence (SVI) is a common disease that causes significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. There is a need for more health economic evaluations of SVI treatment. The aim of this study was to perform a cost effectiveness analysis in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), high ligation and stripping (HL/S), and no treatment or conservative treatment with one year follow up. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial economic analysis from an ongoing trial; 143 patients (156 limbs) with GSV incompetence (CEAP clinical class 2 - 6) were included. Treatment was performed with RFA or HL/S. Follow up was performed up to one year using duplex ultrasound, revised venous clinical severity score (r-VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L). RESULTS: Seventy-eight limbs were treated with RFA and HL/S respectively. No treatment or conservative treatment was assumed to have zero in treatment cost and no treatment benefit. In the RFA group, one limb had reflux in the GSV after one month and three limbs after one year. In HL/S, two limbs had remaining reflux in the treated area at one month and one year. Both disease severity (r-VCSS, p = .004) and QoL (AVVQ, p = .021 and EQ-5D-3L, p = .028) were significantly improved over time. The QALY gain was 0.21 for RFA and 0.17 for HL/S. The cost per patient was calculated as €1 292 for RFA and €2 303 for HL/S. The cost per QALY (compared with no treatment or conservative treatment) was €6 155 for RFA and €13 549 for HL/S. With added cost for days absent from work the cost per QALY was €7 358 for RFA and €24 197 for HL/S. The cost per QALY for both methods was well below the threshold suggested by Swedish National Board of Health. CONCLUSION: RFA is more cost effective than HL/S and no treatment or conservative treatment at one year follow up.

Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Focused Ultrasound for Essential Tremor.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency thalamotomy and deep brain stimulation are current treatments for moderate to severe medication-refractory essential tremor. However, they are invasive and thus carry risks. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound is a new, less invasive surgical option. The objective of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound compared with standard treatments in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov cohort model. We compared magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound with no surgery in people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery and with radiofrequency thalamotomy and deep brain stimulation in people eligible for invasive neurosurgery. In the reference case analysis, we used a 5-year time horizon and a public payer perspective and discounted costs and benefits at 1.5% per year. RESULTS: Compared with no surgery in people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound cost $21,438 more but yielded 0.47 additional quality-adjusted life years, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,817 per quality-adjusted life year gained. In people eligible for invasive neurosurgery, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound was slightly less effective but much less expensive compared with the current standard of care, deep brain stimulation. The results were sensitive to assumptions regarding the time horizon, cost of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound, and probability of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In people ineligible for invasive neurosurgery, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus no surgery is comparable to many other tests and treatments that are widely adopted in high-income countries. In people eligible for invasive neurosurgery, magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound is also a reasonable option. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Radiofrequency ablation compared with argon plasma coagulation after endoscopic resection of high-grade dysplasia or stage T1 adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a randomized pilot study (BRIDE).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is safe and effective for Barrett's esophagus (BE) containing high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or mucosal adenocarcinoma (T1A). The risk of metachronous neoplasia is reduced by ablation of residual BE by using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or argon plasma coagulation (APC). These have not been compared directly. We aimed to recruit up to 100 patients with BE and HGD or T1A confirmed by ER over 1 year in 6 centers in a randomized pilot study. METHODS: Randomization was 1:1 to RFA or APC (4 treatments allowed at 2-month intervals). Recruitment, retention, dysplasia clearance, clearance of benign BE, adverse events, healthcare costs, and quality of life by using EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30, or OES18 were assessed up to the end of the trial at 12 months. RESULTS: Of 171 patients screened, 76 were randomized to RFA (n = 36) or APC (n = 40). The mean age was 69.7 years, and 82% were male. BE was <5 cm (n = 27), 5 to 10 cm (n = 45), and >10 cm (n = 4). Sixty-five patients completed the trial. At 12 months, dysplasia clearance was RFA 79.4% and APC 83.8% (odds ratio [OR] 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-2.6); BE clearance was RFA 55.8%, and APC 48.3% (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 0.5-3.6). A total of 6.1% (RFA) and 13.3% (APC) had buried BE glands. Adverse events (including stricture rate after starting RFA 3/36 [8.3%] and APC 3/37 [8.1%]) and quality of life scores were similar, but RFA cost $27491 more per case than APC. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests similar efficacy and safety but a cost difference favoring APC. A fully powered non-inferiority trial is appropriate to confirm these findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01733719.).

Cooled radiofrequency ablation of the genicular nerves for chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on trial data.

BACKGROUND: For patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, long-term symptomatic relief may improve quality of life. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) has demonstrated significant improvements in pain, physical function and health-related quality of life compared with conservative therapy with intra-articular steroid (IAS) injections. This study aimed to establish the cost-effectiveness of CRFA compared with IAS for managing moderate to severe osteoarthritis-related knee pain, from the US Medicare system perspective. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing efficacy data (Oxford Knee Scores) from a randomized, crossover trial on CRFA (NCT02343003), which compared CRFA with IAS out to 6 and 12 months, and with IAS patients who subsequently crossed over to receive CRFA after 6 months. Outcomes included health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), costs and cost-effectiveness (expressed as cost per QALY gained). QALYs were estimated by mapping Oxford Knee Scores to the EQ-5D generic utility measure using a validated algorithm. Secondary analyses explored differences in the settings of care and procedures used in-trial versus real-world clinical practice. RESULTS: CRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.091 at an incremental cost of $1711, equating to a cost of US$18,773 per QALY gained over a 6-month time horizon versus IAS. Over a 12-month time horizon, the incremental QALY gain was 0.229 at the same incremental cost, equating to a cost of US$7462 per QALY gained versus IAS. Real-world cost assumptions resulted in modest increases in the cost per QALY gained to a maximum of US$21,166 and US$8296 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that findings were robust to variations in efficacy and cost parameters. CONCLUSIONS: CRFA is a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with osteoarthritis-related knee pain, compared with the US$100,000/QALY threshold typically used in the US.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation Among Facet Joint-Related Chronic Low Back Pain Patients in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a common secondary treatment recommended for facet joint-related chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, Thailand still lacks sufficient evidence of RFA's cost-effectiveness to support the decision to fund it. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative economic evaluation of RFA and conservative treatment for CLBP patients over 16-month and 28-month time horizons in Thailand. STUDY DESIGN: A full economic evaluation encompassing measurements of both health utilities and health costs. SETTING: Data were collected from 3 university hospitals in Bangkok, Thailand: King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Siriraj Hospital, and Ramathibodi Hospital. METHODS: The cost-utility analysis, which used the Markov model, was developed according to the Thai health technology assessment guidelines and compared RFA and the best supportive care from the societal perspective. In the study, the population consisted of patients who had endured low back pain for more than 3 months despite receiving conservative treatment. The results were presented as an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) in Thai Baht (THB)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: RFA was not cost-effective in Thailand when compared to conservative treatment, with a cost-effectiveness (CE) ratio of I$13,652 at all time horizons. The ICER of RFA was I$99,267 and I$52,380/QALY for the 16- and 28-month time horizons, respectively. In a scenario analysis in which RFA was repeated at 28 months and followed up to 52 months, the ICER was reduced to I$43,451. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to the changes in utility parameters, the cost of RFA, and opportunity cost in the no-pain state. LIMITATIONS: The study uses primary data to derive the utility value and determine the costs. However, the limitation includes a relatively small sample size and a short follow-up time for parameter inputs. CONCLUSION: This study, the first economic evaluation of RFA for CLBP in Asia, showed that RFA was not cost-effective in Thailand. Price negotiation is recommended to make the intervention more cost-effective before it is included in the benefit package.

Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection for early hepatocellular carcinoma in a resource-poor setting: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation compared with percutaneous ethanol injection in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma in relation to the objective response rate and costs related to the procedure. METHODS: This was a prospective single-center randomized trial. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes were the complete response rate according to the modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors 60 days after randomization and the complication rate within 180 60 days. RESULTS: Fifty patients were placed into the following groups: percutaneous ethanol injection (n=23) and radiofrequency ablation (n=27). Fifty-four nodules were randomized (mean follow-up: 205.37 days). The estimated mean hospital cost was US$ 1854.11 and US$ 2770.96 for the Radiofrequency Ablation and Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Groups, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$ -2674.59, which is advantageous for radiofrequency ablation. After 60 d, 28 of 29 nodules in the Radiofrequency Ablation Group achieved complete response versus 12 of 22 in the Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Group (RD, 42.01 [95%CI= 20.55-63.24]; p<0.001). Only four early complications were observed among patients treated by percutaneous ethanol injection (p<0.05). Late complications occurred in two and one patient(s) in the Radiofrequency Ablation and Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Groups (p>0.05), respectively. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency ablation was more cost-effective and achieved higher complete response and lower complication rates than the Percutaneous Ethanol Injection Group within this cohort. REGISTRY OF CLINICAL TRIALS: NCT06450613.

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for treating patients with gastric antral vascular ectasia refractory to first line endoscopic therapy.

Objective: This economic evaluation aims to provide a preliminary assessment of the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared with argon plasma coagulation (APC) when used to treat APC-refractory gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) in symptomatic patients.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to undertake a cost-utility analysis for adults with persistent symptoms secondary to GAVE refractory to first line endoscopic therapy. The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, with a 20-year time horizon, comparing RFA with APC. Patients transfer between health states defined by haemoglobin level. The clinical effectiveness data were sourced from expert opinion, resource use and costs were reflective of the UK NHS and benefits were quantified using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with utility weights taken from the literature. The primary output was the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per QALY gained.Results: Over a lifetime time horizon, the base case ICER was £4840 per QALY gained with an 82.2% chance that RFA was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. The model estimated that implementing RFA would result in reductions in the need for intravenous iron, endoscopic intervention and requirement for blood transfusions by 27.1%, 32.3% and 36.5% respectively. Compared to APC, RFA was associated with an estimated 36.7% fewer procedures.Conclusions: RFA treatment is likely to be cost-effective for patients with ongoing symptoms following failure of first line therapy with APC and could lead to substantive reductions in health care resource.

Value of monopolar and bipolar radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of benign thyroid nodules.

Only a few thyroid nodules are perceived as functional or optically disturbing. If there is a need for action, surgical intervention is the long-term standard by which thermoablative procedures (radiofrequency-, laser-, microwave ablation, high intensity focused ultrasound) must be measured against in terms of safety, effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Prior to intervention assessment of the dignity of the nodule by ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is essential for cold and warm nodules, as is the confirmation of an inconspicuous cervical lymph node status. The short-term treatment results of these newer interventions in terms of nodule volume reduction and symptomatic improvement are promising and the general complication rate of the procedures is low. Since functional thyroid parenchyma is preserved, maintaining normal thyroid status is the rule. The procedure is usually performed on an outpatient basis, under local anesthesia and monitoring. The subsequent convalescence is usually very short. Most studies are available on monopolar radiofrequency ablation. Several professional societies have defined indications for radiofrequency ablation (RFA), but these need to be further refined based on practical experience and literature. An acceptable long-term recurrence rate still has to be proven for practically all thermoablative methods, for monopolar RFA limited long-term data are encouraging so far. The recurrence rate as well as patient satisfaction will provide the basis for a meaningful overall cost-benefit analysis in the future.

Trends in lumbar radiofrequency ablation utilization from 2007 to 2016.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an intervention used to treat facet-mediated chronic low back pain. In some studies with methods consistent with clinical practice guidelines, RFA results in improvements in pain and functional limitations. However, in other studies, RFA demonstrates limited benefit. Despite unanswered questions regarding efficacy of RFA, its use is widespread. PURPOSE: To describe trends in the utilization and cost of lumbar RFA and lumbar facet injections. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample was derived from the IBM/Watson MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases from 2007 to 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: Longitudinal trends in the distribution and quantity of lumbar facet injections before lumbar RFA, corticosteroid administration during lumbar facet injections, progression to lumbar RFA after lumbar facet injections, lumbar RFA utilization, and costs of these interventions. METHODS: Two primary cohorts were identified from patients who received lumbar RFA or lumbar facet injection procedures. Utilization rates per 100,000 enrollees were determined for both cohorts. The mean, median, and interquartile ranges of the number of facets targeted and costs per procedure were calculated by year and laterality, as well as overall. Costs in 2018 dollars were estimated by summing gross payment totals from patients and insurance plans. This study was supported by funds from the NIH, and has no conflict of interest associated biases. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2016, lumbar RFA sessions performed per 100,000 enrollees per year increased from 49 to 113, a 130.6% overall increase (9.7% annually). Lumbar facet injection use increased from 201 to 251 sessions per 100,000 enrollees, a 24.9% overall increase (2.5% annually). In the year after a lumbar facet injection, 26.7% of patients received lumbar RFA; 28.6% received another injection but not RFA; and 44.7% received neither. The number of patients receiving two lumbar facet injection procedures prior to lumbar RFA grew from 51.1% in 2010 to 58.8% in 2016. For lumbar RFA, the cost per 100,000 enrollees went from $94,570 in 2007 to $266,680 in 2016, a 12.2% annual increase. For lumbar facet injections, the cost per 100,000 enrollees went from $257,280 in 2007 to $396,580 in 2016, a 4.9% annual increase. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed consistent growth in both the frequency and procedure cost of lumbar RFA and facet injections among a large, national, commercially insured population from 2007 to 2016.

Economic impact of atrial fibrillation ablation with radiofrequency contact force catheter versus cryoballoon catheter.

AIM: To compare health utilization among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation with a contact force-sensing (CF) catheter versus a cryoballoon (CB) catheter. METHODS: AF patients who underwent ablation using the CF catheter (THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH® catheter) or CB catheter (Arctic Front™/Arctic Front Advance™ catheter) were identified from the Premier Healthcare database. Propensity score analyses were used to evaluate cost, length of stay and readmissions. RESULTS: The CF catheter (n = 1409) was associated with significantly lower total (∼7%) and supply (∼13%) costs and a significantly lower likelihood of 4-12 month all-cause and CV-related readmission compared with the CB catheter (n = 2306). CONCLUSION: Differential health utilization outcomes are associated with the CF catheter versus the CB catheter in AF ablation.

Budget Impact of Cryoablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in the Brazilian Public Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Cryoablation is a new technology for ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), effective and safe when compared with standard radiofrequency (RF) ablation. Nevertheless, the economic impact of its incorporation is unknown, especially considering the public health system of a developing country. This study analyzed the budget impact of cryoablation incorporation for treatment of paroxysmal AF in the Brazilian public health system. METHODS: The budget impact was calculated as the cost difference between the current scenario (RF ablation guided by electroanatomic mapping) and the new scenario (cryoablation). The cost of each intervention was obtained by multiplying the price of a single procedure by the number of candidates for it. Other technologies (RF ablation guided by intracardiac echocardiography or with a nonirrigated catheter) were considered in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The budget impact showed savings of $43 097 096.84 with cryoablation. In the sensitivity analysis, cryoablation resulted in cost savings compared with RF ablation guided by intracardiac echocardiography, whereas in comparison to RF ablation with the nonirrigated catheter, cryoablation was more expensive. A market share assessment, performed using an incorporation rate of 3% per year, indicated savings of approximately $800 000 per 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation of AF resulted in cost savings compared with the current scenario (RF ablation guided by electroanatomic mapping). When alternative technologies were considered, cryoablation was more expensive than RF ablation with a nonirrigated catheter, but it also resulted in savings compared with RF ablation guided by intracardiac echocardiography. Overall, cryoablation of AF may reduce expenditures in the Brazilian public health system.

Cost-effectiveness of Coblation compared with cold steel tonsillectomies in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Coblation compared with cold steel tonsillectomy in adult and paediatric patients in the UK. METHOD: Decision analysis was undertaken by combining published clinical outcomes with resource utilisation estimates derived from a panel of clinicians. RESULTS: Using a cold steel procedure instead of Coblation is expected to generate an incremental cost of more than £2000 for each additional avoided haemorrhage, and the probability of cold steel being cost-effective was approximately 0.50. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of the two techniques was comparable. When the published clinical outcomes were replaced with clinicians' estimates of current practice, Coblation was found to improve outcome for less cost, and the probability of Coblation being cost-effective was at least 0.70. CONCLUSION: A best-case scenario suggests Coblation affords the National Health Service a cost-effective intervention for tonsillectomy in adult and paediatric patients compared with cold steel procedures. A worst-case scenario suggests Coblation affords the National Health Service an equivalent cost-effective intervention for adult and paediatric patients.

A Comparison of the Initial Cost Associated With Resection Versus Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation of Small Solitary Colorectal Liver Metastasis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this report was to perform a cost-comparison between liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHOD: Patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM)≤3 cm, who underwent LR or laparoscopic RFA between 2006 and 2015 were included in the study. Using a prospectively maintained CRLM database, clinical, oncologic, and financial parameters were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent open or laparoscopic LR, and 25 patients underwent laparoscopic RFA. No significant difference was noted in postoperative complications, readmission rate, and local recurrence rate. With a median follow-up of 40 months for RFA, and 36 months for LR (P=0.61), mean cancer-specific overall survival was 51 months for RFA and 63 months for LR (P=0.64). The median disease-free survival was 14 months for RFA, and 21 months for LR (P=0.59). The mean operating room and hospital costs were 51% and 55% higher in the LR (P<0.001, each). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest that in selected patients with small solitary CRLM, laparoscopic tumor ablation might offer opportunities for cost-savings compared with resection as the primary treatment. This model may suggest possible equivalent oncologic outcomes between the 2 modalities.