A cost-utility analysis of 18F-fluorocholine-positron emission tomography imaging for localizing primary hyperparathyroidism in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Primary hyperparathyroidism historically necessitated bilateral neck exploration to remove abnormal parathyroid tissue. Improved localization allows for focused parathyroidectomy with lower complication risks. Recently, positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine demonstrated high accuracy in detecting these lesions, but its cost-effectiveness has not been studied in the United States. METHODS: A decision tree modeled patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism using single preoperative localization modalities: (1) positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine, (2) 4-dimensional computed tomography, (3) ultrasound, and (4) sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). All patients underwent either focused parathyroidectomy versus bilateral neck exploration, with associated cost ($) and clinical outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. Model parameters were informed by literature review and Medicare costs. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated in US dollars/quality-adjusted life-years gained, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. One-way, 2-way, and threshold sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine gained the most quality-adjusted life-years (23.9) and was the costliest ($2,096), with a total treatment cost of $11,245 or $470/quality-adjusted life-year gained. Sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography and ultrasound were dominated strategies. Compared with 4-dimentional computed tomography, the incremental cost-utility ratio for positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine was $91,066/quality-adjusted life-year gained in our base case analysis, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold. In 1-way sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-utility ratio was sensitive to test accuracy, positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine price, postoperative complication probabilities, proportion of bilateral neck exploration patients needing overnight hospitalization, and life expectancy. CONCLUSION: Our model elucidates scenarios in which positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine can potentially be a cost-effective imaging option for primary hyperparathyroidism in the United States. Further investigation is needed to determine the maximal cost-effectiveness for positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine in selected populations.

Comparison of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT, 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of bone metastases in recurrent prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in France.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) (NaF), 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT (FCH) and diffusion-weighted whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in detecting bone metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with first biochemical recurrence (BCR) has already been published, but their cost-effectiveness in this indication have never been compared. METHODS: We performed trial-based and model-based economic evaluations. In the trial, PCa patients with first BCR after previous definitive treatment were prospectively included. Imaging readings were performed both on-site by local specialists and centrally by experts. The economic evaluation extrapolated the diagnostic performances of the imaging techniques using a combination of a decision tree and Markov model based on the natural history of PCa. The health states were non-metastatic and metastatic BCR, non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and death. The state-transition probabilities and utilities associated with each health state were derived from the literature. Real costs were extracted from the National Cost Study of hospital costs and the social health insurance cost schedule. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in diagnostic performance among the 3 imaging modalities in detecting bone metastases. FCH was the most cost-effective imaging modality above a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 3000€/QALY when imaging was interpreted by local specialists and 9000€/QALY when imaging was interpreted by experts. CONCLUSIONS: FCH had a better incremental effect on QALY, independent of imaging reading and should be preferred for detecting bone metastases in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01501630. Registered 29 December 2011.