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.

[18FDG-PET/CT cost-effectiveness compared to CT at the end of treatment in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma patients]. / Costo-efectividad de 18FDG-PET/CT vs CT al final del tratamiento en pacientes pediátricos con Linfoma Hodgkin.

OBJECTIVE: Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 18FDG-PET/CT (positron emission tomography) compared to computer tomography (CT) followed by 18FDG-PET/CT as a confirmatory test for a positive case at the end of treatment in Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) patients under 18 years-old. METHODS: A decision tree was built for comparing 18FDG-PET/CT to CT followed by 18FDG-PET/CT as a confirmatory test for a positive case in detecting residual lesions; outcome was measured in life years gained (LYG). The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated; the threshold was 3 times the per capita GDP per LYG. Values were expressed in Colombian pesos for 2010 (1 US dollar=$ 1,897.89) and submitted to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Assuming a difference of 13 months in true positives' life expectancy compared to that for false negatives, the cost of an additional LYG with 18FDG-PET/CT compared to CT followed by 18FDG-PET/CT as a confirmatory test for a positive case when evaluating the end of pediatric HL patients' treatment was $ 34,508,590 (COP). CONCLUSION: If differential life-expectancy between true positives and false negatives is at least 1.03 years, then using 18FDG-PET/CT for evaluating the end of HL pediatric patients' therapy is a cost-effective strategy for Colombia.

Costo-efectividad de 18FDG-PET/CT vs CT al final del tratamiento en pacientes pediátricos con Linfoma Hodgkin / 18FDG-PET/CT cost-effectiveness compared to CT at the end of treatment in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma patients

Objetivo Estimar la costo-efectividad de 18FDG-PET/CT comparado con CT seguido de 18FDG-PET/CT como prueba confirmatoria de un caso positivo en la evaluación al final del tratamiento en pacientes menores de 18 años con Linfoma Hodgkin (LH). Métodos Se construyó un árbol de decisión donde se comparó el uso de 18FDG-PET/CT con CT seguido de 18FDG-PET/CT como prueba confirmatoria de un caso positivo en la detección de lesión residual. El resultado se midió en Años de Vida Ganados (AVG). Se calculó la razón de costo-efectividad incremental. Se utilizó como umbral 3 veces el PIB per cápita por año AVG. Valores expresados en pesos colombianos de 2010 (1 US dólar = $ 1 897,89) Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad univariados, bivariados y probabilísticos. Resultados Suponiendo un diferencial en AVG entre verdaderos positivos y falsos negativos de 13 meses, el costo de un AVG adicional con 18FDG-PET/CT comparado con CT seguido de 18FDG-PET/CT como prueba confirmatoria de un caso positivo en la evaluación al final del tratamiento en pacientes pediátricos con LH fue $ 34 508 590. Conclusión Si el diferencial de esperanza de vida entre verdaderos positivos y falsos negativos es de al menos un 1,03 años, el uso de 18FDG-PET/CT en la evaluación al final del tratamiento de pacientes pediátricos con LH, es una estrategia costo-efectiva para Colombia.

Objective Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 18FDG-PET/CT (positron emission tomography) compared to computer tomography (CT) followed by 18FDG-PET/CT as a confirmatory test for a positive case at the end of treatment in Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) patients under 18 years-old. Methods A decision tree was built for comparing 18FDG-PET/CT to CT followed by 18FDG-PET/CT as a confirmatory test for a positive case in detecting residual lesions; outcome was measured in life years gained (LYG). The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated; the threshold was 3 times the per capita GDP per LYG. Values were expressed in Colombian pesos for 2010 (1 US dollar=$ 1,897.89) and submitted to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Assuming a difference of 13 months in true positives' life expectancy compared to that for false negatives, the cost of an additional LYG with 18FDG-PET/CT compared to CT followed by 18FDG-PET/CT as a confirmatory test for a positive case when evaluating the end of pediatric HL patients' treatment was $ 34,508,590 (COP). Conclusion If differential life-expectancy between true positives and false negatives is at least 1.03 years, then using 18FDG-PET/CT for evaluating the end of HL pediatric patients' therapy is a cost-effective strategy for Colombia.

[Analysis of cost-effectiveness in the diagnosis of fever of unknown origin and the role of (18)F-FDG PET-CT: a proposal of diagnostic algorithm]. / Análisis de costo-efectividad en el diagnóstico de fiebre de origen desconocido y el papel de la (18)F-FDG PET-TC: propuesta de algoritmo diagnóstico.

AIM: To analyze the costs of Fever of Unknown Origin (FUO) prior to the PET-CT study. To determine the effectiveness of PET-CT in the diagnosis of FUO. A proposal of diagnostic algorithm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed that included 20 patients who had been studied between January 2007 and January 2011, with a mean age of 57.75 years and FUO diagnosis. All underwent a PET-CT study with (18)F-FDG. Individual and mean costs of FUO in these patients were assessed, including hospitalization days and complementary tests prior to the PET-CT study. The effectiveness of the PET-CT study in the diagnosis of FUO was analyzed. Costs of the FUO process were determined, including those of the PET-CT study, and if it had been done earlier in the diagnostic process. RESULTS: Mean hospital stay per patient until the PET-CT study was 28 days. The cost per hospitalization day was 342 €. Average cost per patient in complementary tests was 1395 €. Total cost of the FUO process until the PET-CT study was around 11167 € per patient. The PET-CT study showed a 78% sensitivity, 83% specificity, 92% PPV and 62% NPV. If PET-CT had been performed earlier in the FUO process, assuming the same effectiveness, 5471 € per patient would have been saved. CONCLUSION: The PET-CT study could be cost-effective in the FUO process if used at an early stage, helping to establish an early diagnosis, reducing hospitalization days due to diagnostic purposes and the repetition of unnecessary tests.

F-18 NaF PET for detection of bone metastases in lung cancer: accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and impact on patient management.

UNLABELLED: As bone metastases might be present in lung cancer despite a normal bone scan, we examined various alternatives prospectively. Positron emission tomography using F-18 sodium fluoride (PET) and single photon emission tomography (SPECT) were more sensitive than a planar bone scan. PET was more accurate with a shorter examination time than SPECT but had higher incremental costs. INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown that vertebral bone metastases not seen on planar bone scans may be present on F-18 fluoride positron emission tomography (PET) scan or single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). The purpose of this study was to measure the accuracy, clinical value and cost-effectiveness of tomographic bone imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 103 patients with initial diagnosis of lung cancer was prospectively examined with planar bone scintigraphy (BS), SPECT of the vertebral column and PET using F-18 sodium fluoride (F-18 PET). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used for determination of the diagnostic accuracy. A decision-analysis model and the national charge schedule of the German Hospital Association were used for determination of the cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Thirteen of 33 patients with bone metastases were false negative on BS, 4 on SPECT, and 2 on F-18 PET. The area under the ROC curve was 0.771 for BS, 0.875 for SPECT, and 0.989 for F-18 PET (p < 0.05). As a result of SPECT and F-18 PET imaging, clinical management was changed in 8 (7.8%) and 10 (9.7%) patients. Compared with BS, the costs per additional correctly diagnosed patient were 1272 Euro with SPECT and 2861 Euro with F-18 PET. The threshold for the costs of F-18 PET being more cost-effective than SPECT was 345 EUR. CONCLUSION: Routine performance of tomographic bone imaging improves the therapeutic strategy because of detection of otherwise missed metastases. F-18 PET is more effective than SPECT but is associated with higher incremental costs.