Courtney J Balentine1, David J Vanness2, David F Schneider3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. Electronic address: cbalentine@uabmc.edu. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether diagnostic thyroidectomy for indeterminate thyroid nodules would be more cost-effective than genetic testing after including the costs of long-term surveillance. METHODS: We used a Markov decision model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thyroid lobectomy versus genetic testing (Afirma®) for evaluation of indeterminate (Bethesda 3-4) thyroid nodules. The base case was a 40-year-old woman with a 1-cm indeterminate nodule. Probabilities and estimates of utilities were obtained from the literature. Cost estimates were based on Medicare reimbursements with a 3% discount rate for costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: During a 5-year period after the diagnosis of indeterminate thyroid nodules, lobectomy was less costly and more effective than Afirma® (lobectomy: $6,100; 4.50 quality-adjusted life- years vs Afirma®: $9,400; 4.47 quality-adjusted life-years). Only in 253 of 10,000 simulations (2.5%) did Afirma® show a net benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per quality- adjusted life-years. There was only a 0.3% probability of Afirma® being cost saving and a 14.9% probability of improving quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSIONS: Our base case estimate suggests that diagnostic lobectomy dominates genetic testing as a strategy for ruling out malignancy of indeterminate thyroid nodules. These results, however, were highly sensitive to estimates of utilities after lobectomy and living under surveillance after Afirma®. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether diagnostic thyroidectomy for indeterminate thyroid nodules would be more cost-effective than genetic testing after including the costs of long-term surveillance. METHODS: We used a Markov decision model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thyroid lobectomy versus genetic testing (Afirma®) for evaluation of indeterminate (Bethesda 3-4) thyroid nodules. The base case was a 40-year-old woman with a 1-cm indeterminate nodule. Probabilities and estimates of utilities were obtained from the literature. Cost estimates were based on Medicare reimbursements with a 3% discount rate for costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: During a 5-year period after the diagnosis of indeterminate thyroid nodules, lobectomy was less costly and more effective than Afirma® (lobectomy: $6,100; 4.50 quality-adjusted life- years vs Afirma®: $9,400; 4.47 quality-adjusted life-years). Only in 253 of 10,000 simulations (2.5%) did Afirma® show a net benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per quality- adjusted life-years. There was only a 0.3% probability of Afirma® being cost saving and a 14.9% probability of improving quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSIONS: Our base case estimate suggests that diagnostic lobectomy dominates genetic testing as a strategy for ruling out malignancy of indeterminate thyroid nodules. These results, however, were highly sensitive to estimates of utilities after lobectomy and living under surveillance after Afirma®. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Erik K Alexander; Giulia C Kennedy; Zubair W Baloch; Edmund S Cibas; Darya Chudova; James Diggans; Lyssa Friedman; Richard T Kloos; Virginia A LiVolsi; Susan J Mandel; Stephen S Raab; Juan Rosai; David L Steward; P Sean Walsh; Jonathan I Wilde; Martha A Zeiger; Richard B Lanman; Bryan R Haugen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David F Schneider; Linda M Cherney Stafford; Nicole Brys; Caprice C Greenberg; Courtney J Balentine; Dawn M Elfenbein; Susan C Pitt Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Regina Promberger; Johannes Ott; Friedrich Kober; Michael Karik; Michael Freissmuth; Michael Hermann Journal: Thyroid Date: 2010-12-29 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Hossein Gharib; Enrico Papini; Roberto Valcavi; H Jack Baskin; Anna Crescenzi; Massimo E Dottorini; Daniel S Duick; Rinaldo Guglielmi; Carlos Robert Hamilton; Martha A Zeiger; Michele Zini Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Robert T Pu; Jack Yang; Patricia G Wasserman; Tawfiqul Bhuiya; Kent A Griffith; Claire W Michael Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Naykky Singh Ospina; Spyridoula Maraka; Ana Elena Espinosa de Ycaza; Juan P Brito; M Regina Castro; John C Morris; Victor M Montori Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Salem I Noureldine; Matthew T Olson; Nishant Agrawal; Jason D Prescott; Martha A Zeiger; Ralph P Tufano Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Xavier M Keutgen; Hui Li; Kelvin Memeh; Julian Conn Busch; Jelani Williams; Li Lan; David Sarne; Brendan Finnerty; Peter Angelos; Thomas J Fahey; Maryellen L Giger Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Elizabeth J de Koster; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Adrienne H Brouwers; Eveline W C M van Dam; Lioe-Ting Dijkhorst-Oei; Adriana C H van Engen-van Grunsven; Wilbert B van den Hout; Tamira K Klooker; Romana T Netea-Maier; Marieke Snel; Wim J G Oyen; Dennis Vriens Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Elizabeth J de Koster; Olga Husson; Eveline W C M van Dam; G Sophie Mijnhout; Romana T Netea-Maier; Wim J G Oyen; Marieke Snel; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Dennis Vriens Journal: Endocr Connect Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 3.221