Literature DB >> 28726119

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the diagnostic strategies for differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma.

Chong Hyun Suh1,2, Kyung Won Kim3,4, Seong Ho Park1, Sangjin Shin5, Jeonghoon Ahn5, Junhee Pyo6, Atul B Shinagare7, Katherine M Krajewski7, Nikhil H Ramaiya7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) strategy compared with conventional MRI strategy and biopsy to differentiate focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) from hepatocellular adenoma (HCA).
METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of EOB-MRI, conventional MRI with extracellular contrast agents, and biopsy as the initial diagnostic modality in patients with incidentally detected focal liver lesions suspected of being FNH or HCA. We analysed the cost and effectiveness, i.e. probability of successful diagnosis of each strategy. Costs were based on utilisation rates and Medicare reimbursements in the USA and South Korea.
RESULTS: In the base case analysis of our decision tree model, the effectiveness of the three strategies was similar. The cost of the EOB-MRI strategy ($1283 in USA, $813 in South Korea) was lowest compared with the biopsy strategy ($1725 in USA, $847 in South Korea) and the conventional MRI strategy ($1750 in USA, $962 in South Korea). One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed unchanged results over an acceptable range.
CONCLUSIONS: EOB-MRI strategy is the most cost-effective strategy for differentiating FNH from HCA in patients with incidentally detected focal liver lesions in a non-cirrhotic liver. KEY POINTS: • The effectiveness of the three strategies was similar. • The cost of the EOB-MRI strategy was lowest. • EOB-MRI strategy is the most cost-effective for differentiating FNH from HCA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-effectiveness analysis; Decision tree; Focal nodular hyperplasia; Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI; Hepatocellular adenoma

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28726119     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4967-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  35 in total

Review 1.  Diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia: not so easy.

Authors:  P Bioulac-Sage; C Balabaud; I R Wanless
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 2.  Pathological diagnosis of liver cell adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia: Bordeaux update.

Authors:  P Bioulac-Sage; C Balabaud; P Bedossa; J Y Scoazec; L Chiche; A P Dhillon; L Ferrell; V Paradis; T Roskams; V Vilgrain; I R Wanless; J Zucman-Rossi
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2007-01-02       Impact factor: 25.083

3.  Consensus report of the Fifth International Forum for Liver MRI.

Authors:  Christoph J Zech; Carlo Bartolozzi; Paulette Bioulac-Sage; Pierce K Chow; Alejandro Forner; Luigi Grazioli; Alexander Huppertz; Herve Laumonier; Jeong Min Lee; Takamichi Murakami; Jens Ricke; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 4.  Hypervascular liver lesions on MRI.

Authors:  Faisal Khosa; Atif N Khan; Ronald L Eisenberg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in differentiating hepatocellular adenoma from focal nodular hyperplasia: prospective study of the additional value of gadoxetate disodium.

Authors:  Matthanja Bieze; Jacomina W van den Esschert; C Yung Nio; Joanne Verheij; Johannes B Reitsma; Valeska Terpstra; Thomas M van Gulik; Saffire S K S Phoa
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Liver cell adenomas. A 12-year surgical experience from a specialist hepato-biliary unit.

Authors:  T Leese; O Farges; H Bismuth
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Incidence and severity of acute adverse reactions to four different gadolinium-based MR contrast agents.

Authors:  Takashi Okigawa; Daisuke Utsunomiya; Satomi Tajiri; Shuichiro Okumura; Akira Sasao; Hirohumi Wada; Seitaro Oda; Hiroki Arimura; Eri Hayashida; Joji Urata; Yasuyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 2.471

8.  Focal nodular hyperplasia: hepatobiliary enhancement patterns on gadoxetic-acid contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  C S van Kessel; E de Boer; F J W ten Kate; L A A Brosens; W B Veldhuis; M S van Leeuwen
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2013-06

9.  ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents.

Authors:  E Neri; M A Bali; A Ba-Ssalamah; P Boraschi; G Brancatelli; F Caseiro Alves; L Grazioli; T Helmberger; J M Lee; R Manfredi; L Martì-Bonmatì; C Matos; E M Merkle; B Op De Beeck; W Schima; S Skehan; V Vilgrain; C Zech; C Bartolozzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Consensus report from the 7th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Elmar M Merkle; Christoph J Zech; Carlo Bartolozzi; Mustafa R Bashir; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Alexander Huppertz; Jeong Min Lee; Jens Ricke; Michiie Sakamoto; Claude B Sirlin; Sheng-Long Ye; Mengsu Zeng
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-13       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  2 in total

1.  The Utility of Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Angiography and Neck Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Patients with Suspected Acute Stroke.

Authors:  Mark Harris; Alyssa Finger; Emily Nishimura; Blake Watabe; Hyo-Chun Yoon
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2021-05

2.  Hepatocellular adenomas: is there additional value in using Gd-EOB-enhanced MRI for subtype differentiation?

Authors:  Timo Alexander Auer; Uli Fehrenbach; Christian Grieser; Tobias Penzkofer; Dominik Geisel; Moritz Schmelzle; Tobias Müller; Hendrik Bläker; Daniel Seehofer; Timm Denecke
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 5.315

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.