Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Clear Cell Likelihood Score Against Renal Mass Biopsy for Evaluating Small Renal Masses.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of the clear cell likelihood score compared to renal mass biopsy (RMB) alone. METHODS: The clear cell likelihood score, a new grading system based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, has been proposed as a possible alternative to percutaneous RMB for identifying clear cell renal carcinoma in small renal masses and expediting treatment of high-risk patients. A decision analysis model was developed to compare a RMB strategy where all patients undergo biopsy and a clear cell likelihood score strategy where only patients that received an indeterminant score of 3 undergo biopsy. Effectiveness was assigned 1 for correct diagnoses and 0 for incorrect or indeterminant diagnoses. Costs were obtained from institutional fees and Medicare reimbursement rates. Probabilities were derived from literature estimates from radiologists trained in the clear cell likelihood score. RESULTS: In the base case model, the clear cell likelihood score was both more effective (0.77 vs 0.70) and less expensive than RMB ($1629 vs $1966). Sensitivity analysis found that the nondiagnostic rate of RMB and the sensitivity of the clear cell likelihood score had the greatest impact on the model. In threshold analyses, the clear cell likelihood score was the preferred strategy when its sensitivity was greater than 62.7% and when an MRI cost less than $5332. CONCLUSION: The clear cell likelihood score is a more cost-effective option than RMB alone for evaluating small renal masses for clear cell renal carcinoma.

Is perfect the enemy of good? Weighing the evidence for biparametric MRI in prostate cancer.

The role of multiparametric MRI in diagnosis, staging and treatment planning for prostate cancer is well established. However, there remain several challenges to widespread adoption. One such challenge is the duration and cost of the examination. Abbreviated exams omitting contrast-enhanced sequences may help address this challenge. In this review, we will discuss the rationale for biparametric MRI for detection and characterization of clinically significant prostate cancer prior to biopsy and synthesize the published literature. We will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages to this approach and lay out a conceptual cost/benefit analysis regarding adoption of biparametric MRI.

Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and MRI-guided biopsy in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting using a micro-simulation model.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI-guided biopsy has improved the diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, it remains uncertain whether it is cost-effective, especially in a population-based screening strategy. METHODS: We used a micro-simulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of an MRI-based prostate cancer screening in comparison to the classical prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, at a population level. The test sensitivity parameters for the mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy, grade misclassification rates, utility estimates, and the unit costs of different interventions were obtained from literature. We assumed the same screening attendance rate and biopsy compliance rate for both strategies. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis, consisting of 1000 model runs, was performed to estimate a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and assess uncertainty. A €20,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and a discounting rate of 3.5% was considered in the analysis. RESULTS: The MRI-based screening improved the life-years (LY) and QALYs gained by 3.5 and 3, respectively, in comparison to the classical screening pathway. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the MRI screening pathway leads to total discounted mean incremental costs of €15,413 (95% confidence interval (CI) of €14,556-€16,272) compared to the classical screening pathway. The corresponding discounted mean incremental QALYs gained was 1.36 (95% CI of 1.31-1.40), resulting in a mean ICER of €11,355 per QALY gained. At a WTP threshold of €20,000, the MRI screening pathway has about 84% chance to be more cost-effective than the classical screening pathway. CONCLUSIONS: For triennial screening from age 55-64, incorporation of mpMRI as a reflex test after a positive PSA test result with a subsequent MRI-guided biopsy has a high probability to be more cost-effective as compared with the classical prostate cancer screening pathway.

Funding of prostate magnetic resonance imaging leads to fewer biopsies and potential savings to health systems in the management of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (mpMRIp) on the number of prostate biopsies performed in Australia. METHODS: Australian Medicare published statistics from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2019 were obtained from publically available databases for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, prostate biopsy, and mpMRIp. Analysis was divided into three time periods broadly based on availability of mpMRI to the Australian public: 2007-2012 (no mpMRIp), 2012-2018 (mpMRIp available, privately funded), and 2018-2019 (mpMRIp available with Medicare funding). Introduction of mpMRIp was hypothesised to reduce the number of prostate biopsies performed. PSA testing numbers were used as a control. The economics model, proposed by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), was analysed for cost savings. RESULTS: Accounting for variations in PSA testing, the introduction of mpMRIp from 2012 coincided with a reduction in the number of prostate biopsies by an average of 354.7/month (95% CI 175, 534.4; P < 0.001). Whilst the number of mpMRIp performed for the initial 12 months was underestimated by the MSAC at 38 470 vs 20 149 (+$8.3 million Australian dollars), we estimate the annual savings from reduced number biopsies and biopsy-associated complications to be $13.2 ± 9.6 million. CONCLUSION: Availability of mpMRIp in Australia has correlated with a significant reduction in prostate biopsy rates, with an estimated annual saving of $13.2 ± 9.6 million. Government funding of this diagnostic service has the potential to improve health equity and save on health expenditure.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Associated with Increased Medicare Spending in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may improve prostate cancer risk stratification and decrease the need for repeat biopsies in men on prostate cancer active surveillance (AS). However, the impact of mpMRI on AS-related healthcare spending has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the impact of mpMRI on AS-related Medicare expenditures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare files, we identified men ≥66 yr old with localized prostate cancer diagnosed during 2008-2013. OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: With a validated algorithm, we classified men into AS with and without mpMRI groups. We then determined Medicare spending on AS in each group using inflation-adjusted, price-standardized Medicare payments for AS-related procedures (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] tests, prostate biopsies, biopsy complications, and mpMRI). Multivariable median regression compared Medicare spending on AS for men who received mpMRI and those who did not. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 9081 men on AS with a median follow-up of 45 mo (interquartile range 29-64 mo). Thirteen percent (N = 1225) received mpMRI. On multivariable median regression, receipt of mpMRI was associated with an additional $447 (95% confidence interval $409-487) in Medicare spending per year. We observed greater frequency of AS-related procedures and higher spending for identical procedures (eg, PSA or prostate biopsy) in the mpMRI group than in the non-mpMRI group (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries on AS, mpMRI is associated with additional annual Medicare spending. Future studies are needed to determine optimal use of mpMRI during AS to maximize value. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) helps physicians determine which prostate cancers are aggressive and which can be monitored safely. We studied whether using MRI during prostate cancer monitoring (also called active surveillance) resulted in increased healthcare spending. There was a modest increase in spending, but this may be worthwhile if the use of MRI allows physicians to monitor prostate cancer more accurately.

18F-Choline PET/mpMRI for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Part 2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 18F-choline PET/multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) versus mpMRI alone for the detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. Methods: A Markov model of prostate cancer onset and progression was used to estimate the health and economic consequences of 18F-choline PET/mpMRI for the detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. Multiple simultaneous hybrid 18F-choline PET/mpMRI strategies were evaluated using Likert or Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring; the first was biopsy for Likert 5 mpMRI lesions or Likert 3-4 lesions with 18F-choline target-to-background ratios of greater than or equal to 1.58, and the second was biopsy for PI-RADSv2 5 mpMRI lesions or PI-RADSv2 3-4 mpMRI lesions with 18F-choline target-to-background ratios of greater than or equal to 1.58. These strategies were compared with universal standard biopsy, mpMRI alone with biopsy only for PI-RADSv2 3-5 lesions, and mpMRI alone with biopsy only for Likert 4-5 lesions. For each mpMRI strategy, either no biopsy or standard biopsy could be performed after negative mpMRI results were obtained. Deaths averted, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each strategy. Results: When the results of 18F-choline PET/mpMRI were negative, performing a standard biopsy was more expensive and had lower QALYs than performing no biopsy. The best screening strategy among those considered in this study performed hybrid 18F-choline PET/mpMRI with Likert scoring on men with elevated PSA, performed combined biopsy (targeted biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy) for men with positive imaging results, and no biopsy for men with negative imaging results ($22,706/QALY gained relative to mpMRI alone); this strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 35% in comparison to mpMRI alone. When the same policies were compared using PI-RADSv2 instead of Likert scoring, hybrid 18F-choline PET/mpMRI cost $46,867/QALY gained relative to mpMRI alone. In a threshold analysis, the best strategy among those considered remained cost-effective when the sensitivity and specificity of PET/mpMRI and combined biopsy (targeted biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy) were simultaneously reduced by 20 percentage points. Conclusion:18F-choline PET/mpMRI for the detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 is cost-effective and can reduce the number of unneeded biopsies in comparison to mpMRI alone.