PURPOSE: To make preliminary estimates of the effectiveness (in life-years) and cost-effectiveness (in costs per life-year) of whole-body computed tomographic (CT) screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs and effectiveness (in life-years) of onetime whole-body CT screening relative to those of no screening were calculated by using a decision-analytic model. It was assumed that any benefits from screening were due to earlier detection of disease and improvement in survival relative to survival with routine care. Eight conditions were included in the model: ovarian, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, and colon cancer; abdominal aortic aneurysm; and coronary artery disease. Costs of the screening examination, follow-up tests, and patient care were estimated. The base-case analysis was performed for a hypothetical cohort of 500 000 self-referred asymptomatic 50-year-old men. For sensitivity analyses, the age and sex of the cohort were varied. Results were expressed in 2001 U.S. dollars per life-year gained. RESULTS: Compared with routine care, whole-body CT screening provided minimal gains in life expectancy (0.016 6 years or 6 days) at an average additional cost of 2513 dollars per patient, or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 151 000 dollars per life-year gained. Most patients (90.8%) had at least one positive finding, but only 2.0% had disease; work-up in patients with a false-positive result of screening accounted for 32.3% of total costs (1720 dollars of 5332 dollars). Results were sensitive to the prevalence of disease, the effect of screening on stage of disease at diagnosis, the specificity of screening, and the costs of follow-up for false-positive findings. CONCLUSION: Even with assumptions favorable to whole-body CT, implementation of onetime screening would not be cost-effective compared with currently funded medical interventions; follow-up for false-positive findings would add a substantial financial burden to the health care system. (c) RSNA, 2005.
PURPOSE: To make preliminary estimates of the effectiveness (in life-years) and cost-effectiveness (in costs per life-year) of whole-body computed tomographic (CT) screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs and effectiveness (in life-years) of onetime whole-body CT screening relative to those of no screening were calculated by using a decision-analytic model. It was assumed that any benefits from screening were due to earlier detection of disease and improvement in survival relative to survival with routine care. Eight conditions were included in the model: ovarian, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, and colon cancer; abdominal aortic aneurysm; and coronary artery disease. Costs of the screening examination, follow-up tests, and patient care were estimated. The base-case analysis was performed for a hypothetical cohort of 500 000 self-referred asymptomatic 50-year-old men. For sensitivity analyses, the age and sex of the cohort were varied. Results were expressed in 2001 U.S. dollars per life-year gained. RESULTS: Compared with routine care, whole-body CT screening provided minimal gains in life expectancy (0.016 6 years or 6 days) at an average additional cost of 2513 dollars per patient, or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 151 000 dollars per life-year gained. Most patients (90.8%) had at least one positive finding, but only 2.0% had disease; work-up in patients with a false-positive result of screening accounted for 32.3% of total costs (1720 dollars of 5332 dollars). Results were sensitive to the prevalence of disease, the effect of screening on stage of disease at diagnosis, the specificity of screening, and the costs of follow-up for false-positive findings. CONCLUSION: Even with assumptions favorable to whole-body CT, implementation of onetime screening would not be cost-effective compared with currently funded medical interventions; follow-up for false-positive findings would add a substantial financial burden to the health care system. (c) RSNA, 2005.
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Kurtis A Campbell; David Chang; Taylor S Riall; Joann Coleman; Patricia K Sauter; Marcia Canto; Ralph H Hruban; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Charles J Yeo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: C Plathow; M Walz; M P Lichy; P Aschoff; C Pfannenberg; H Bock; S M Eschmann; C D Claussen; H P Schlemmer Journal: Radiologe Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Pamela M McMahon; Chung Yin Kong; Bruce E Johnson; Milton C Weinstein; Jane C Weeks; Karen M Kuntz; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Stephen J Swensen; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alexsander K Bressan; Jean-Francois Ouellet; Divine Tanyingoh; Elijah Dixon; Gilaad G Kaplan; Sean C Grondin; Robert P Myers; Rachid Mohamed; Chad G Ball Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Maite Millor; Pablo Bartolomé; Maria José Pons; Gorka Bastarrika; Óscar Beloqui; David Cano; Ignacio González; Isabel Vivas Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 3.469