Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period? SUMMARY ANSWER: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342).

Cost-effectiveness of medically assisted reproduction or expectant management for unexplained subfertility: when to start treatment?

STUDY QUESTION: Over a time period of 3 years, which order of expectant management (EM), IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) and IVF is the most cost-effective for couples with unexplained subfertility with the female age below 38 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: If a live birth is considered worth €32 000 or less, 2 years of EM followed by IVF was the most cost-effective, whereas above €32 000 this was 1 year of EM, 1 year of IUI-OS and then 1 year of IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS and IVF are commonly used fertility treatments for unexplained subfertility although many couples can conceive naturally, as no identifiable barrier to conception could be found by definition. Few countries have guidelines on when to proceed with medically assisted reproduction (MAR), mostly based on the expected probability of live birth after treatment, but there is a lack of evidence to support the strategies proposed by these guidelines. The increased uptake of IUI-OS and IVF over the past decades and costs related to reimbursement of these treatments are pressing concerns to health service providers. For MAR to remain affordable, sustainable and a responsible use of public funds, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for unexplained subfertility, including EM. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We developed a decision analytic Markov model that follows couples with unexplained subfertility of which the woman is under 38 years of age for a time period of 3 years from completion of the fertility workup onwards. We divided the time axis of 3 years into three separate periods, each comprising 1 year. The model was based on contemporary evidence, most notably the dynamic prediction model for natural conception, which was combined with MAR treatment effects from a network meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials. We changed the order of options for managing unexplained subfertility for the 1 year periods to yield five different treatment policies in total: IVF-EM-EM (immediate IVF), EM-IVF-EM (delayed IVF), EM-EM-IVF (postponed IVF), IUIOS-IVF-EM (immediate IUI-OS) and EM-IUIOS-IVF (delayed IUI-OS). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The main outcomes per policy over the 3-year period were the probability of live birth, the average treatment and delivery costs, the probability of multiple pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and finally, which policy yields the highest net benefit in which costs for a policy were deducted from the health effects, i.e. live births gained. We chose the Dutch societal perspective, but the model can be easily modified for other locations or other perspectives. The probability of live birth after EM was taken from the dynamic prediction model for natural conception and updated for Years 2 and 3. The relative effects of IUI-OS and IVF in terms of odds ratios, taken from the network meta-analysis, were applied to the probability of live birth after EM. We applied standard discounting procedures for economic analyses for Years 2 and 3. The uncertainty around effectiveness, costs and other parameters was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: From IVF-EM-EM to EM-IUIOS-IVF, the probability of live birth varied from approximately 54-64% and the average costs from approximately €4000 to €9000. The policies IVF-EM-EM and EM-IVF-EM were dominated by EM-EM-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. The policy IUIOS-IVF-EM was dominated by EM-IUIOS-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. After removal of policies that were dominated, the ICER for EM-IUIOS-IVF was approximately €31 000 compared to EM-EM-IVF. The range of ICER values between the lowest 25% and highest 75% of simulation replications was broad. The net benefit curve showed that when we assume a live birth to be worth approximately €20 000 or less, the policy EM-EM-IVF had the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €20 000 and €50 000 monetary value per live birth, it was uncertain whether EM-EM-IVF was better than EM-IUIOS-IVF, with the turning point of €32 000. When we assume a monetary value per live birth over €50 000, the policy with the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit was EM-IUIOS-IVF. Results for subgroups with different baseline prognoses showed the same policies dominated and the same two policies that were the most likely to achieve the highest net benefit but at different threshold values for the assumed monetary value per live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. The change in relative effectiveness of IVF over time was found to be highly influential on results and their interpretation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EM-EM-IVF and EM-IUIOS-IVF followed by IVF were the most cost-effective policies. The choice depends on the monetary value assigned to a live birth. The results of our study can be used in discussions between clinicians, couples and policy makers to decide on a sustainable treatment protocol based on the probability of live birth, the costs and the limitations of MAR treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek (80-85200-98-91072). The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Does endometrial scratching increase the rate of spontaneous conception in couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis (Hunault > 30%)? Study protocol of the SCRaTCH-OFO trial: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis to conceive spontaneously (i.e. Hunault > 30%) are advised to perform timed intercourse for at least another 6 months. If couples fail to conceive within this period, they will usually start assisted reproductive technology (ART). However, treatment of unexplained infertility by ART is empirical and can involve significant burdens. Intentional endometrial injury, also called 'endometrial scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of embryo implantation in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). It might also be beneficial for couples with unexplained infertility as defective endometrial receptivity may play a role in these women. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether endometrial scratching increases live birth rates in women with unexplained infertility. METHOD: A multicentre randomized controlled trial will be conducted in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals starting from November 2017. A total of 792 women with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for spontaneous conception < 12 months (Hunault > 30%) will be included, of whom half will undergo endometrial scratching in the luteal phase of the natural cycle. The women in the control group will not undergo endometrial scratching. According to Dutch guidelines, both groups will subsequently perform timed intercourse for at least 6 months. The primary endpoint is cumulative live birth rate. Secondary endpoints are clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate; biochemical pregnancy loss; multiple pregnancy rate; time to pregnancy; progression to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or IVF; pregnancy complications; complications of endometrial scratching; costs and endometrial tissue parameters associated with reproductive success or failure. The follow-up duration is 12 months. DISCUSSION: Several small studies show a possible beneficial effect of endometrial scratching in women with unexplained infertility trying to conceive naturally or through IUI. However, the quality of this evidence is very low, making it unclear whether these women will truly benefit from this procedure. The SCRaTCH-OFO trial aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rate in women with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for spontaneous conception < 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR6687 , registered August 31st, 2017. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2.6, November 14th, 2018.

Cost-effectiveness of 'immediate IVF' versus 'delayed IVF': a prospective study.

STUDY QUESTION: How does the cost-effectiveness (CE) of immediate IVF compared with postponing IVF for 1 year, depend on prognostic characteristics of the couple? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CE ratio, i.e. the incremental costs of immediate versus delayed IVF per extra live birth, is the highest (range of €15 000 to >€60 000) for couples with unexplained infertility and for them depends strongly on female age and the duration of infertility, whilst being lowest for endometriosis (range 8000-23 000) and, for such patients, only slightly dependent on female age and duration of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A few countries have guidelines for indications of IVF, using the diagnostic category, female age and duration of infertility. The CE of these guidelines is unknown and the evidence base exists only for bilateral tubal occlusion, not for the other diagnostic categories. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A modelling approach was applied, based on the literature and data from a prospective cohort study among couples eligible for IVF or ICSI treatment, registered in a national waiting list in The Netherlands between January 2002 and December 2003. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 5962 couples was included. Chances of natural ongoing pregnancy were estimated from the waiting list observations and chances of ongoing pregnancy after IVF from follow-up data of couples with primary infertility that began treatment. Prognostic characteristics considered were female age, duration of infertility and diagnostic category. Costs of IVF were assessed from a societal perspective and determined on a representative sample of patients. A cost-effectiveness comparison was made between two scenarios: (I) wait one more year and then undergo IVF for 1 year and (II) immediate IVF during 1 year, and try to conceive naturally in the following year. Comparisons were made for strata determined by the prognostic factors. The final outcome was a live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The gain in live birth rate of the immediate IVF scenario versus postponed IVF increased with female age, and was independent from diagnostic category or duration of infertility. By contrast, the corresponding increase in costs primarily depended on diagnostic category and duration of infertility. The lowest CE ratio was just below €10 000 per live birth for endometriosis from age 34 onwards at 1 year duration. The highest CE ratio reached €56 000 per live birth for unexplained infertility at age 30 and 3 years duration, dropping to values below € 30 000 per live birth from age 32 onwards. It reached values below €20 000 per live birth with 3 years duration at age 34 and older. The CE ratio was in between for the three other diagnostic categories (i.e. Male infertility, Hormonal and Immunological/Cervical). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We applied estimates of chances with IVF, excluding frozen embryos, for which we had no data. Therefore, we do not know the effect of frozen embryo transfers on the CE. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The duration of infertility at which IVF becomes cost-effective depends, firstly, on the level of society's willingness to pay for one extra live birth, and secondly, given a certain level of willingness to pay, on the woman's age and the diagnostic category. In current guidelines, the chances of a natural conception should always be taken into account before deciding whether to start IVF treatment and at which time. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, grant 945-12-013). ZonMW had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: none.

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Face validity and reliability of the first digital assessment scheme of pelvic floor muscle function conform the new standardized terminology of the International Continence Society.

AIMS: To test the face validity and reliability of a new digital pelvic floor muscle function (PFMF) assessment scheme that was designed on the basis of the recently standardized terminology of the International Continence Society. METHODS: Study participants comprised 41 women, age 18-85 years. Data on age and parity were obtained. Face validity of the new assessment scheme was tested by three senior and one junior pelvic physiotherapists, using the Delphi technique. PFMF of each woman was assessed four times by three specially trained pelvic physiotherapists. Examiners were blinded to parity and other findings. To test reliability, Kappa (K) was used for the dichotomous variables and Weighted Kappa (K(w)) for the items with more than two categories. RESULTS: Mean age of the women was 41 years (SD 10.5); 14 were nulliparous (34.1%), 6 primiparous (14.6%), and 21 multiparous (51.2%). The new assessment scheme showed satisfactory face validity and intra-observer reliability but low inter-observer reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The new assessment scheme based on the terminology of the ICS showed satisfactory face validity and intra-observer reliability. It can therefore be considered suitable for use in clinical practice. More detailed redefinition of the described outcome measures is necessary to improve the inter-observer reliability.

Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cumulative IVF pregnancy rates are compromised by the large number of couples who drop-out of treatment before achieving pregnancy. The aim of this study was to identify the role of the treatment strategy applied, and potential other factors that influence the decision of couples to discontinue treatment. METHODS: The incidence of drop-out from IVF treatment and factors related to drop-out were studied in a cohort of IVF patients aged <38 years embarking on IVF treatment either with a mild or a standard treatment strategy for a planned maximum number of treatment cycles. RESULTS: Of the 384 couples studied, 17% dropped out of IVF treatment. The physical or psychological burden of treatment was the most frequent cause of drop-out (28%). The application of a mild treatment strategy (mild ovarian stimulation along with the transfer of a single embryo) significantly reduced the chance of drop-out (hazard ratio (HR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.96). When a mild IVF strategy was employed, the association between the baseline anxiety score and drop-out was reduced by >50%. The presence of severe male subfertility (HR 4.80; 95% CI, 1.63-14.13) and the failure to achieve embryo transfer (odds ratio 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.72) were also related to drop-out. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing drop-out rate is crucial to further improve the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IVF treatment. An important factor determining the risk of drop-out is the burden of the treatment strategy. The application of a mild treatment strategy and managing patient's expectations might reduce drop-out rates.

[Reduction of patient discomfort, risks and costs, but not pregnancies, by a mild strategy for in-vitro fertilisation]. / Minder risico's, patiëntenongemak en kosten, maar niet minder zwangerschappen in de milde behandelstrategie voor ivf.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a so-called mild in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment strategy with the standard IVF treatment on the following aspects: the chance of a pregnancy resulting in full-term live birth within 1 year, patient discomfort, multiple pregnancies, and costs. DESIGN: Randomised, open-label, prospective trial (www.controlledtrials.com, number ISRCTN35766970). METHOD: 404 patients were assigned to undergo either a mild treatment, consisting of ovarian stimulation with a gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist combined with single embryo transfer, or the standard treatment consisting of prolonged stimulation with a GnRH agonist combined with the transfer of two embryos. The primary outcome measures were: (1) the percentage of cumulative pregnancies within one year after randomisation leading to full-term live birth; (2) total costs per couple and child up to 6 weeks after expected delivery; and (3) overall patient discomfort. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle and was intended to show that the mild treatment was not inferior to the standard treatment; the non-inferiority threshold was -12.5%. RESULTS: The proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in full-term live birth after 1 year was 43.4% in the mild and 44.7% in the standard treatment group. The lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was equal to -9.8%. The respective proportion of couples with multiple pregnancies was 0.5% versus 13.1% (p < 0.0001), and the average total costs were Euro 8,333.- versus Euro 10,745.- (difference: Euro 2,412.-, 95% CI: 703-4,131). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to anxiety, depression, physical discomfort, and sleep quality. CONCLUSION: After 1 year of treatment, the cumulative percentage of pregnancies leading to full-term live birth and the total patient discomfort were the same for the mild treatment (average 2.3 IVF-cycles) and the standard treatment (average 1.7 IVF-cycles). The mild treatment significantly reduced the number of multiple pregnancies and the overall costs.

Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint.

BACKGROUND Conventional ovarian stimulation and the transfer of two embryos in IVF exhibits an inherent high probability of multiple pregnancies, resulting in high costs. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a conventional strategy for IVF. METHODS Four hundred and four patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mild ovarian stimulation/GnRH antagonist co-treatment combined with single embryo transfer, or standard stimulation/GnRH agonist long protocol and the transfer of two embryos. The main outcome measures are total costs of treatment within a 12 months period after randomization, and the relationship between total costs and proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in term live birth within 1 year of randomization. RESULTS Despite a significantly increased average number of IVF cycles (2.3 versus 1.7; P < 0.001), lower average total costs over a 12-month period (8333 versus euro10 745; P = 0.006) were observed using the mild strategy. This was mainly due to higher costs of the obstetric and post-natal period for the standard strategy, related to multiple pregnancies. The costs per pregnancy leading to term live birth were euro19 156 in the mild strategy and euro24 038 in the standard. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the standard strategy compared with the mild strategy was euro185 000 per extra pregnancy leading to term live birth. CONCLUSIONS Despite an increased mean number of IVF cycles within 1 year, from an economic perspective, the mild treatment strategy is more advantageous per term live birth. It is unlikely, over a wide range of society's willingness-to-pay, that the standard treatment strategy is cost-effective, compared with the mild strategy.

Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment.

Our objective was to determine the interobserver variability of breast density assessment according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and to examine potential associations between breast density and risk factors for breast cancer. Four experienced breast radiologists received instructions regarding the use of BI-RADS and they assessed 57 mammograms into BI-RADS density categories of 1-4. The weighted kappa values for breast density between pairs of observers were 0.84 (A, B) (almost perfect agreement); 0.75 (A, C), 0.74 (A, D), 0.71 (B, C), 0.77 (B, D), 0.65 (C, D) (substantial agreement). The weighted overall kappa, measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69-0.85). Body mass index was inversely associated with high breast density. In conclusion, overall interobserver agreement in mammographic interpretation of breast density is substantial and therefore, the BI-RADS classification for breast density is useful for standardization in a multicentre study.

Detection of distant metastases in patients with oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer: a diagnostic decision analysis.

Computed tomography (CT) is presently a standard procedure for the detection of distant metastases in patients with oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer. We aimed to determine the additional diagnostic value of alternative staging investigations. We included 569 oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer patients who had undergone CT neck/thorax/abdomen, ultrasound (US) abdomen, US neck, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and/or chest X-ray for staging. Sensitivity and specificity were first determined at an organ level (results of investigations, i.e., CT, US abdomen, US neck, EUS, and chest X-ray, per organ), and then at a patient level (results for combinations of investigations), considering that the detection of distant metastases is a contraindication to surgery. For this, we compared three strategies for each organ: CT alone, CT plus another investigation if CT was negative for metastases (one-positive scenario), and CT plus another investigation if CT was positive, but requiring that both were positive for a final positive result (two-positive scenario). In addition, costs, life expectancy and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared between different diagnostic strategies. CT showed sensitivities for detecting metastases in celiac lymph nodes, liver and lung of 69, 73, and 90%, respectively, which was higher than the sensitivities of US abdomen (44% for celiac lymph nodes and 65% for liver metastases), EUS (38% for celiac lymph nodes), and chest X-ray (68% for lung metastases). In contrast, US neck showed a higher sensitivity for the detection of malignant supraclavicular lymph nodes than CT (85 vs 28%). At a patient level, sensitivity for detecting distant metastases was 66% and specificity was 95% if only CT was performed. A higher sensitivity (86%) was achieved when US neck was added to CT (one-positive scenario), at the same specificity (95%). This strategy resulted in lower costs compared to CT only, at an almost similar (quality adjusted) life expectancy. Slightly higher specificities (97-99%) were achieved if liver and/or lung metastases found on CT, were confirmed by US abdomen or chest X-ray, respectively (two-positive scenario). These strategies had only slightly higher QALYs, but substantially higher costs. The combination of CT neck/thorax/abdomen and US neck was most cost-effective for the detection of metastases in patients with oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer, whereas the performance of CT only had a lower sensitivity for metastases detection and higher costs. The role of EUS seems limited, which may be due to the low number of M1b celiac lymph nodes detected in this series. It remains to be determined whether the application of positron emission tomography will further increase sensitivities and specificities of metastases detection without jeopardising costs and QALYs.

The role of socio-economic status in the decision making on diagnosis and treatment of oesophageal cancer in The Netherlands.

In the United States (USA), a correlation has been demonstrated between socio-economic status (SES) of patients on the one hand, and tumour histology, stage of the disease and treatment modality of various cancer types on the other hand. It is unknown whether such correlations are also involved in patients with oesophageal cancer in The Netherlands. Between 1994 and 2003, 888 oesophageal cancer patients were included in a prospective database with findings on the diagnostic work-up and treatment of oesophageal cancer. Socio-economic status of patients was defined as the average net yearly income. Linear-by-linear association testing revealed that oesophageal adenocarcinoma was more frequently observed in patients with higher SES and squamous cell carcinoma in patients with lower SES (P=0.02). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed no correlation between SES and staging procedures and preoperative TNM stage. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for stent placement was 0.82 (95% CI 0.71-0.95), indicating that with an increase in SES by 1200 [euro], the likelihood that a stent was placed declined by 18%. Patients with a higher SES more frequently underwent resection or were treated with chemotherapy (OR: 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.32 and OR: 1.16; 95% CI 1.02-1.32, respectively). Socio-economic factors are involved in oesophageal cancer in The Netherlands, as patients with a higher SES are more likely to have an adenocarcinoma and patients with a lower SES a squamous cell carcinoma. Moreover, the correlations between SES and different treatment modalities suggest that both patient and doctor determinants contribute to the decision on the most optimal treatment modality in patients with oesophageal cancer.

Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: We discuss methodological considerations related to a study in IVF, which compares the effectiveness, health economics and patient discomfort of two treatment strategies that differ in both ovarian stimulation and embryo transfer policies. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial in two large Dutch IVF centres. The tested treatment strategies are: mild ovarian stimulation [including gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist co-treatment] together with the transfer of one embryo, versus conventional stimulation (with GnRH agonist long protocol co-treatment) and the transfer of two embryos. Outcome measures are: (i) pregnancies resulting in term live birth; (ii) total costs per term live birth; and (iii) patient stress/discomfort per started IVF treatment, over a 12 month period. Power considerations for this study were an overall cumulative live birth rate of 45% for the conventional treatment strategy, with non-inferiority of the mild treatment strategy defined as a live birth rate no more than 12.5% lower compared with the conventional study arm. For a power of 80% and alpha of 0.05, 400 subjects are required. RESULTS: As planned, from February 2002 until February 2004, 410 patients were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: This effectiveness study applies an integrated medical, health economics and psychological approach with term live birth over a given period of time after starting IVF as the end-point. Complete and timely patient enrolment vindicates many of the design decisions.

Dynamic decision analysis to determine optimal treatment duration in chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for stopping treatment of chronic hepatitis C are based on hepatitis C ribonucleic acid measurements at 12 and 24 weeks. AIM: To explore an alternative approach for making individualized recommendations about treatment duration, based on simple alanine aminotransferase tests and on cost-per-cure. METHODS: We analysed individual patient data from 13 randomized, controlled trials with interferon alone or combined with ribavirin. Using multiple logistic regression, we built a model that estimated the probability of sustained virological response for treatment durations of 24 and 48 weeks. Decisions to prolong treatment were based on an increase in probability of sustained virological response. If the increase was 10%, the cost-per-cure became decisive with a limit of 50,000. RESULTS: Noncirrhotics with genotype 2 or 3 did not benefit when treatment was continued beyond 24 weeks. Sustained virological response rates in cirrhotic patients increased by 14-47% if treatment was continued up to 48 weeks. In noncirrhotic genotype 1 or 4 patients who had elevated alanine aminotransferase levels at week 4, the probability of sustained virological response increased by <10% if treatment was continued up to 48 weeks; the cost-per-cure for these patients would exceed 50,000. CONCLUSION: The dynamics of alanine aminotransferase levels and cost-per-cure provides a useful alternative to determine the duration of therapy in chronic hepatitis C.

The use of confidence intervals for individual utilities: limits to formal decision analysis for treatment choice.

This paper discusses the use of confidence intervals for utility measurements. Classic test theory is applied to estimate confidence intervals for utilities. The theory is enhanced to calculate confidence areas for combined utilities and confidence bands for the threshold line. As an example it is shown that, if confidence intervals are taken into account, the implied preferred treatment of T3-larynx carcinoma patients is uncertain for a wide range of utilities, considering the mediocre reliability of most methods of utility assessment. This implies that although utility measurement and formal decision analysis can be a useful way to look at the decision problem, ambiguity, which must be resolved by other means, will often remain.

The 'utility' of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time trade-off?

Methods often used for the valuation of health states are the time trade-off (TTO) and the visual analog scale (VAS). The VAS is easier than the TTO and can be self-administered; however it usually leads to lower scores. In the literature a power transformation of group mean VAS scores to TTO scores has been proposed. We were able to replicate this finding of a power function. We found coefficients that were very similar to those from the literature, for 183 cancer patients. The relationship existed independently of disease state and health status.