Literature DB >> 12709099

Rapid magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing cancer-related low back pain.

William Hollingworth1, Darryl T Gray, Brook I Martin, Sean D Sullivan, Richard A Deyo, Jeffrey G Jarvik.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the relative efficiency of lumbar x-ray and rapid magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for diagnosing cancer-related low back pain (LBP) in primary care patients.
DESIGN: We developed a decision model with Markov state transitions to calculate the cost per case detected and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of rapid MR imaging. Model parameters were estimated from the medical literature. The costs of x-ray and rapid MR were calculated in an activity-based costing study. SETTING AND PATIENTS: A hypothetical cohort of primary care patients with LBP referred for imaging to exclude cancer as the cause of their pain. MAIN
RESULTS: The rapid MR strategy was more expensive due to higher initial imaging costs and larger numbers of patients requiring conventional MR and biopsy. The overall sensitivity of the rapid MR strategy was higher than that of the x-ray strategy (62% vs 55%). However, because of low pre-imaging prevalence of cancer-related LBP, this generates <1 extra case per 1,000 patients imaged. Therefore, the incremental cost per case detected using rapid MR was high ($213,927). The rapid MR strategy resulted in a small increase in quality-adjusted survival (0.00043 QALYs). The estimated incremental cost per QALY for the rapid MR strategy was $296,176.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not enough evidence to support the routine use of rapid MR to detect cancer as a cause of LBP in primary care patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12709099      PMCID: PMC1494841          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20633.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  46 in total

1.  Percutaneous transpedicular biopsy of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae--method and diagnostic validity.

Authors:  R Ashizawa; K Ohtsuka; M Kamimura; S Ebara; K Takaoka
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  1999-12

2.  MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of suspected malignant spinal cord compression.

Authors:  D J Husband; K A Grant; C S Romaniuk
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Diagnosis of vertebral metastasis, epidural metastasis, and malignant spinal cord compression: are T(1)-weighted sagittal images sufficient?

Authors:  J K Kim; T J Learch; P M Colletti; J W Lee; S D Tran; M R Terk
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 4.  Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application.

Authors:  M Sculpher; E Fenwick; K Claxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Metastatic spinal cord compression: diagnostic delay, treatment, and outcome.

Authors:  A Solberg; R M Bremnes
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.480

6.  Finding cancer in primary care outpatients with low back pain: a comparison of diagnostic strategies.

Authors:  J D Joines; R A McNutt; T S Carey; R A Deyo; R Rouhani
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  The surgical treatment of metastatic disease of the spine.

Authors:  N C Hatrick; J D Lucas; A R Timothy; M A Smith
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  Prediction of spinal epidural metastases.

Authors:  G E Kienstra; C B Terwee; F W Dekker; L R Canta; A C Borstlap; C C Tijssen; D A Bosch; J G Tijssen
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  2000-05

9.  Prognostic factors in metastatic spinal cord compression: a prospective study using multivariate analysis of variables influencing survival and gait function in 153 patients.

Authors:  S Helweg-Larsen; P S Sørensen; S Kreiner
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2000-03-15       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Limited magnetic resonance imaging in low back pain instead of plain radiographs: experience with first 1000 cases.

Authors:  E G McNally; D J Wilson; S J Ostlere
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  4 in total

1.  Thromboelastometry and Thrombelastography Analysis under Normal Physiological Conditions - Systematic Review.

Authors:  Marcel Adler; Sandra Ivic; Nicolas S Bodmer; Hugo Ten Cate; Lucas M Bachmann; Walter A Wuillemin; Michael Nagler
Journal:  Transfus Med Hemother       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 3.747

2.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of patients with suspected disc herniation.

Authors:  Somayeh Hajiahmadi; Azin Shayganfar; Mahsa Askari; Shadi Ebrahimian
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2020-11-04

3.  Routine versus needs-based MRI in patients with prolonged low back pain: a comparison of duration of treatment, number of clinical contacts and referrals to surgery.

Authors:  Rikke K Jensen; Manniche Claus; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde
Journal:  Chiropr Osteopat       Date:  2010-07-09

4.  Degarelix vs. leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer in China: A cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Jianzhou Yan; Caiyun Li; Xuefang Zhang; Luyan Cheng; Ruilin Ding; Lingli Zhang
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-07-18
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.