S Podlipnik1, D Moreno-Ramírez1, C Carrera1,2,3, A Barreiro1, E Manubens1, L Ferrandiz-Pulido1, M Sánchez4, S Vidal-Sicart5, J Malvehy1,2,3, S Puig1,2,3. 1. Department of Dermatology , Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Spain. 2. Institut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. 3. CIBER on Rare Diseases, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Radiology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many follow-up guidelines for patients with high-risk melanoma include expensive imaging studies, serum biomarkers and regular visits to the dermatologist, with little attention to cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To establish the cost-effectiveness of chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a follow-up protocol for patients at high risk of relapse. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre cohort study of 290 patients with clinicopathological American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC and III melanoma. Patients had a body CT scan and brain MRI every 6 months and were withdrawn from the study after completing a 5-year follow-up or when metastases were detected. A cost-effectiveness analysis for each follow-up radiological procedure was performed. RESULTS: Patients underwent 1805 body CT scans and 1683 brain MRIs. Seventy-six metastases (26·2%) were identified by CT or MRI. CT scan was cost-effective in the first 4 years (cost-effectiveness ratio €4710·70-€14 437·10/patient with metastasis); brain MRI was cost-effective during the first year (cost-effectiveness ratio €14 090·60/patient with metastasis). Limitations included lack of survival analysis and comparisons with willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Six-monthly CT scan of the chest, abdomen and pelvis is a cost-effective technique for the early detection of metastases in the first 4 years of follow-up in patients with AJCC stage IIC and III melanoma, and in the first 3 years in patients with AJCC stage IIB melanoma. In addition, brain MRI has been shown to be cost-effective only in the first year of follow-up in patients with AJCC stage IIC and III melanoma.
BACKGROUND: Many follow-up guidelines for patients with high-risk melanoma include expensive imaging studies, serum biomarkers and regular visits to the dermatologist, with little attention to cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To establish the cost-effectiveness of chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a follow-up protocol for patients at high risk of relapse. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre cohort study of 290 patients with clinicopathological American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC and III melanoma. Patients had a body CT scan and brain MRI every 6 months and were withdrawn from the study after completing a 5-year follow-up or when metastases were detected. A cost-effectiveness analysis for each follow-up radiological procedure was performed. RESULTS:Patients underwent 1805 body CT scans and 1683 brain MRIs. Seventy-six metastases (26·2%) were identified by CT or MRI. CT scan was cost-effective in the first 4 years (cost-effectiveness ratio €4710·70-€14 437·10/patient with metastasis); brain MRI was cost-effective during the first year (cost-effectiveness ratio €14 090·60/patient with metastasis). Limitations included lack of survival analysis and comparisons with willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Six-monthly CT scan of the chest, abdomen and pelvis is a cost-effective technique for the early detection of metastases in the first 4 years of follow-up in patients with AJCC stage IIC and III melanoma, and in the first 3 years in patients with AJCC stage IIB melanoma. In addition, brain MRI has been shown to be cost-effective only in the first year of follow-up in patients with AJCC stage IIC and III melanoma.
Authors: Mark William Linder; Michael E Egger; Tracy Van Meter; Shesh N Rai; Roland Valdes; Melissa Barousse Hall; Xiaoyong Wu; Norah Alghamdi; Jason A Chesney Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Martine Bloemendal; Wouter W van Willigen; Kalijn F Bol; Marye J Boers-Sonderen; Johannes J Bonenkamp; J E M Werner; Erik H J G Aarntzen; Rutger H T Koornstra; Jan Willem B de Groot; I Jolanda M de Vries; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Winald R Gerritsen; Johannes H W de Wilt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: F E Lira; S Podlipnik; M Potrony; G Tell-Martí; N Calbet-Llopart; A Barreiro; C Carrera; J Malvehy; S Puig Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: M Majem; J L Manzano; I Marquez-Rodas; K Mujika; E Muñoz-Couselo; E Pérez-Ruiz; L de la Cruz-Merino; E Espinosa; M Gonzalez-Cao; A Berrocal Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Mbathio Dieng; Robin M Turner; Sarah J Lord; Andrew J Einstein; Alexander M Menzies; Robyn P M Saw; Omgo E Nieweg; John F Thompson; Rachael L Morton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: S Podlipnik; C Carrera; A Boada; N A Richarz; J L López-Estebaranz; F Pinedo-Moraleda; M Elosua-González; M M Martín-González; R Carrillo-Gijón; P Redondo; E Moreno; J Malvehy; S Puig Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 6.166