Costs and outcomes evaluation of patient navigation after abnormal cancer screening: evidence from the Patient Navigation Research Program.

BACKGROUND: Navigators can facilitate timely access to cancer services, but to the authors' knowledge there are little data available regarding their economic impact. METHODS: The authors conducted a cost-consequence analysis of navigation versus usual care among 10,521 individuals with abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening results who enrolled in the Patient Navigation Research Program study from January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2010. Navigation costs included diagnostic evaluation, patient and staff time, materials, and overhead. Consequences or outcomes were time to diagnostic resolution and probability of resolution. Differences in costs and outcomes were evaluated using multilevel, mixed-effects regression modeling adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, language, marital status, insurance status, cancer, and site clustering. RESULTS: The majority of individuals were members of a minority (70.7%) and uninsured or publically insured (72.7%). Diagnostic resolution was higher for navigation versus usual care at 180 days (56.2% vs 53.8%; P = .008) and 270 days (70.0% vs 68.2%; P < .001). Although there were no differences in the average number of days to resolution between the 2 groups (110 days vs 109 days; P = .63), the probability of ever having diagnostic resolution was higher for the navigation group versus the usual-care group (84.5% vs 79.6%; P < .001). The added cost of navigation versus usual care was $275 per patient (95% confidence interval, $260-$290; P < .001). There was no significant difference in stage distribution among the 12.4% of patients in the navigation group vs 11% of the usual-care patients diagnosed with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation adds costs and modestly increases the probability of diagnostic resolution among patients with abnormal screening test results. Navigation is only likely to be cost-effective if improved resolution translates into an earlier cancer stage at the time of diagnosis.

Parotid masses: MR imaging.

Twenty patients with surgically proved neoplasms of the parotid gland were evaluated in order to compare contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. In 14 patients both CT and MR imaging examinations were performed, while in six only MR imaging was performed. Because contrast resolution is better with MR imaging, it appears to be superior to CT in distinguishing the parotid gland from surrounding structures. Four intraparotid lesions were more conspicuous on T2-weighted MR images than on CT scans. MR imaging appears to be superior to CT for evaluating parotid masses and for distinguishing neoplasms of the parotid gland from those originating within the parapharyngeal space.