Cost-Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Opportunistic Compression Fracture Screening of Existing Radiographs.

PURPOSE: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are a highly prevalent source of morbidity and mortality, and preventive treatment has been demonstrated to be both effective and cost effective. To take advantage of the information available on existing chest and abdominal radiographs, the authors' study group has developed software to access these radiographs for OVCFs with high sensitivity and specificity using an established artificial intelligence deep learning algorithm. The aim of this analysis was to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of implementing this software. METHODS: A deterministic expected-value cost-utility model was created, combining a tree model and a Markov model, to compare the strategies of opportunistic screening for OVCFs against usual care. Total costs and total quality-adjusted life-years were calculated for each strategy. Screening and treatment costs were considered from a limited societal perspective, at 2022 prices. RESULTS: In the base case, assuming a cost of software implantation of $10 per patient screened, the screening strategy dominated the nonscreening strategy: it resulted in lower cost and increased quality-adjusted life-years. The lower cost was due primarily to the decreased costs associated with fracture treatment and decreased probability of requiring long-term care in patients who received preventive treatment. The screening strategy was dominant up to a cost of $46 per patient screened. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence-based opportunistic screening for OVCFs on existing radiographs can be cost effective from a societal perspective.

Traumatic Cervical Cerebrovascular Injury and the Role of CTA: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Traumatic cerebrovascular injury (CVI) involving the cervical carotid and vertebral arteries is rare but can lead to stroke, hemodynamic compromise, and mortality in the absence of early diagnosis and treatment. The diagnosis of both blunt CVI (BCVI) and penetrating CVI is based on cerebrovascular imaging. The most commonly used screening criteria for BCVI include the expanded Denver criteria and the Memphis criteria, each providing varying thresholds for subsequent imaging. Neck CTA has supplanted catheter-based digital subtraction angiography as the preferred screening modality for CVI in patients with trauma. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review describes the current state of CTA-based cervical imaging in trauma. We review the most common screening criteria for BCVI, discuss BCVI grading scales that are based on neck CTA, describe the diagnostic performance of CTA in the context of other imaging modalities and evolving treatment strategies, and provide a practical guide for neck CTA implementation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Understanding Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: An Explanation Using Three Different Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) contribute to informed decision making, at both the practitioner and societal levels; therefore, understanding CEAs is valuable for radiologists. In light of the recently published National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) CEA, we aim to explain the terminology, methods, and heterogeneity of CEAs. CONCLUSION: We compared the NLST results to two example lung cancer screening CEAs (which do not rely on NLST data). Both examples assessed screening but reached substantially different conclusions.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

PURPOSE: Genetically-targeted therapies are both promising and costly advances in the field of oncology. Several treatments for metastatic melanoma with a mutation in the BRAF gene have been approved. They extend life but are more expensive than the previous standard of care (dacarbazine). Vemurafenib, the first drug in this class, costs $13,000 per month ($207,000 for a patient with median survival). Patients failing vemurafenib are often given ipilimumab, an immunomodulator, at $150,000 per course. Assessment of cost-effectiveness is a valuable tool to help navigate the transition toward targeted cancer therapy. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare three strategies for patients with BRAF+ metastatic melanoma using a deterministic expected-value decision tree model to calculate the present value of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each strategy. We performed sensitivity analyses on all variables. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine was $353,993 per QALY gained (0.42 QALYs added, $156,831 added). The ICER for vemurafenib followed by ipilimumab compared with vemurafenib alone was $158,139. In sensitivity analysis, treatment cost had the largest influence on results: the ICER for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine dropped to $100,000 per QALY gained with a treatment cost of $3600 per month. CONCLUSION: The cost per QALY gained for treatment of BRAF+ metastatic melanoma with vemurafenib alone or in combination exceeds widely-cited thresholds for cost-effectiveness. These strategies may become cost-effective with lower drug prices or confirmation of a durable response without continued treatment.