BACKGROUND & AIMS: The increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States has significant health and economic consequences. Ultrasound (US) surveillance is recommended for patients with cirrhosis because of their high risk of HCC and improving treatment outcomes for small tumors. We assessed the costs, clinical benefits, and cost effectiveness of US surveillance and alternative strategies for HCC in cirrhosis using a computer-based state transition model with parameters derived from available literature. METHODS: Our model compared a policy of no surveillance with 6 surveillance strategies in cirrhotic patients ages 50 years and older in the United States: (1) annual US, (2) semiannual US, (3) semiannual US with alpha-fetoprotein, (4) annual computed tomography (CT), (5) semiannual CT, and (6) annual magnetic resonance imaging. The number of screening tests needed to detect one small HCC, cost per treated HCC, lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Semiannual US surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by 8.6 months on average, but extended it nearly 3.5 years in patients with small treated tumors. Semiannual US surveillance had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $30,700 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and was more cost effective than the alternative surveillance strategies using a threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the combined alpha-fetoprotein/US and annual CT strategies exceeded $50,000/QALY unless the sensitivity and specificity of US decreased to less than 65% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Semiannual US surveillance for HCC in cirrhotic patients improves clinical outcomes at a reasonable cost.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States has significant health and economic consequences. Ultrasound (US) surveillance is recommended for patients with cirrhosis because of their high risk of HCC and improving treatment outcomes for small tumors. We assessed the costs, clinical benefits, and cost effectiveness of US surveillance and alternative strategies for HCC in cirrhosis using a computer-based state transition model with parameters derived from available literature. METHODS: Our model compared a policy of no surveillance with 6 surveillance strategies in cirrhotic patients ages 50 years and older in the United States: (1) annual US, (2) semiannual US, (3) semiannual US with alpha-fetoprotein, (4) annual computed tomography (CT), (5) semiannual CT, and (6) annual magnetic resonance imaging. The number of screening tests needed to detect one small HCC, cost per treated HCC, lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Semiannual US surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by 8.6 months on average, but extended it nearly 3.5 years in patients with small treated tumors. Semiannual US surveillance had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $30,700 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and was more cost effective than the alternative surveillance strategies using a threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the combined alpha-fetoprotein/US and annual CT strategies exceeded $50,000/QALY unless the sensitivity and specificity of US decreased to less than 65% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Semiannual US surveillance for HCC in cirrhotic patients improves clinical outcomes at a reasonable cost.
Authors: J M Llovet; J Bustamante; A Castells; R Vilana; M del C Ayuso; M Sala; C Brú; J Rodés; J Bruix Journal: Hepatology Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Adrian M Di Bisceglie; Richard K Sterling; Raymond T Chung; James E Everhart; Jules L Dienstag; Herbert L Bonkovsky; Elizabeth C Wright; Gregory T Everson; Karen L Lindsay; Anna S F Lok; William M Lee; Timothy R Morgan; Marc G Ghany; David R Gretch Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: F Y Yao; L Ferrell; N M Bass; J J Watson; P Bacchetti; A Venook; N L Ascher; J P Roberts Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: E Villa; A Moles; I Ferretti; P Buttafoco; A Grottola; M Del Buono; M De Santis; F Manenti Journal: Hepatology Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: D Franco; L Capussotti; C Smadja; H Bouzari; J Meakins; F Kemeny; D Grange; M Dellepiane Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1990-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: N Chalasani; J C Horlander; A Said; H Hoen; K K Kopecky; S M Stockberger; R Manam; P Y Kwo; L Lumeng Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Derek Patel; Norah A Terrault; Francis Y Yao; Nathan M Bass; Uri Ladabaum Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: L Barbara; G Benzi; S Gaiani; F Fusconi; G Zironi; S Siringo; A Rigamonti; C Barbara; W Grigioni; A Mazziotti Journal: Hepatology Date: 1992-07 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: G Realdi; G Fattovich; S Hadziyannis; S W Schalm; P Almasio; J Sanchez-Tapias; E Christensen; G Giustina; F Noventa Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: M Sherman; K Burak; J Maroun; P Metrakos; J J Knox; R P Myers; M Guindi; G Porter; J R Kachura; P Rasuli; S Gill; P Ghali; P Chaudhury; J Siddiqui; D Valenti; A Weiss; R Wong Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.677