| Literature DB >> 26528505 |
Ananya Das1, William Brugge2, Girish Mishra3, Dennis M Smith4, Mankanwal Sachdev1, Eric Ellsworth4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Current guidelines recommend using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing and cytology to manage incidental pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN); however, studies suggest a strategy including integrated molecular pathology (IMP) of cyst fluid may further aid in predicting risk of malignancy. Here, we evaluate several strategies for diagnosing and managing asymptomatic PCN using healthcare economic modeling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A third-party-payer perspective Markov decision model examined four management strategies in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 asymptomatic patients incidentally found to have a 3 cm solitary pancreatic cystic lesion. Strategy I used cross-sectional imaging, recommended surgery only if symptoms or risk factors emerged. Strategy II considered patients for resection without initial EUS. Strategy III (EUS + CEA + Cytology) referred only those with mucinous cysts (CEA > 192 ng/mL) for resection. Strategy IV implemented IMP; a commercially available panel provided a "Benign," "Mucinous," or "Aggressive" classification based on the level of mutational change in cyst fluid. "Benign" and "Mucinous" patients were followed with surveillance; "Aggressive" patients were referred for resection. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), relative risk with 95 %CI, Number Needed to Treat (NNT), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26528505 PMCID: PMC4612224 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1392016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Summary of the four patient management strategies evaluated in the model. Further details can be found in the Methods section under Strategies, and in Table S2 of the supplement.
Estimates for model variables (supporting references are noted in Table S1 of the Supplement).
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
|
| All | 30 | 10 – 60 | |
|
| All | |||
| Benign | 65 | 0 – 100 | ||
| Borderline/indolent | 20 | 0 – 100 | ||
| Malignant | 15 | 0 – 100 | ||
|
| All | |||
| Cyst is ≤ 3 cm | 2 | 0 – 5 | ||
| Cyst is > 3 cm | 10 | 1 – 15 | ||
|
| ||||
| Cyst is ≤ 3 cm | 2.5 | 0 – 50 | ||
| Cyst is > 3 cm | 5 | 0 – 50 | ||
|
| 25 | 0 – 100 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| MRI/CT (sensitivity) | All | 70 | 50 – 100 | |
| CEA + cytology (sensitivity) | III, IV | 80 | 50 – 100 | |
| CEA + cytology (specificity) | III, IV | 65 | 0 – 80 | |
| PathFinder TG + CEA + cytology (sensitivity) | IV | 68 | 50 – 80 | |
| PathFinder TG + CEA + cytology (specificity) | IV | 90 | 70 – 95 | |
|
| ||||
| PathFinder sensitivity | IV | 82 | 70 – 90 | |
| PathFinder specificity | IV | 85 | 70 – 90 | |
|
| ||||
|
| 3 | 1 – 15 | ||
|
| 10 | 0 – 5 | ||
| Normal (%) | 1.0 | (N/A) | ||
| Incidental cyst (%) | 1.0 | 0.75 – 1 | ||
| Symptomatic cyst (%) | 0.95 | 0.7 – 1 | ||
| Postoperative state (%) | 0.95 | 0.7 – 1 | ||
| Early cancer (%) | 0.9 | 0.68 – 1 | ||
| Advanced cancer (%) | 0.5 | 0.38 – 1 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| All | 1000 | (± 250) | |
|
| III, IV | 1525 | 675 – 2675 | |
|
| 40 000 | (± 10 000) | ||
|
| 50 000 | (± 12 500) | ||
|
| IV | 3100 | 2500 – 5000 | |
|
| 3 | 0 – 7 | ||
Results (using baseline estimates of variables).
|
|
|
|
|
| I. Wait & watch | 19 251 | 10.36 | – |
| II. Resect if operable | 32 393 | 9.95 | – 32 054 (Dominated) |
| III. EUS-FNA + Cytology + CEA | 25 841 | 11.22 | 6590 (Dominated) |
| IV. Integrated mutational profiling | 19 373 | 12.33 | 62 (Preferred) |
Fig. 2 a Results of two-way model sensitivity analysis comparing ranges of cost of integrated mutational profiling (X-axis) vs. diagnostic sensitivity of the PathFinder TG assay in differentiating mucinous from non-mucinous PCNs. For most possible costs and sensitivities, PFTG strategy is preferred (green), except where the cost of PFTG is too high (blue). b Results of two-way sensitivity analysis comparing ranges of sensitivity of PathFinder TG vs. sensitivity of CEA in differentiating mucinous from non-mucinous cysts. PFTG is preferred except in areas marked by blue (low sensitivity of PFTG and relatively high CEA sensitivity). For reference, a ‘star’ designates the baseline estimates in each nomogram.
Fig. 3Results of a Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 patients. Each point represents the increase/decrease in cost (y-axis) and QALY (x-axis) for a particular patient when choosing Strategy IV over Strategy III.
Monte Carlo simulation of frequency of surgery and advanced malignancy with each strategy.
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| Patients (#) | Cost ($) |
| Patients (#) | Cost ($) |
| Patients (#) | Cost ($) |
| Patients (#) | Cost ($) |
| ||
| Yes | No | 135 | 42 830 | 14.53 | 327 | 40 000 | 12.69 | 247 | 41 574 | 13.21 | 127 | 45 537 | 13.6 |
| No | No | 847 | 13 150 | 9.77 | 641 | 22 596 | 7.92 | 734 | 16 518 | 10.64 | 864 | 14 118 | 12.22 |
| Yes | 18 | 109 339 | 5.41 | 32 | 106 130 | 6.43 | 19 | 111 232 | 8.24 | 9 | 113 652 | 4.77 | |
| Overall | 1000 | $ 18 766 | 10.36 | 1000 | 30 876 | 9.95 | 1000 | 24 519 | 11.22 | 1000 | 18 966 | 12.3 | |
The model assumes that surgery prevents progression to advanced malignancy.
Fig. 4Average net health benefits (Y-axis) yielded under each strategy against the WTP (X-axis). Strategy IV yields the highest NHB and Strategy II the lowest over a range of Willingness to Pay.