Juan E Corral, Ananya Das1, Marco J Bruno2, Michael B Wallace. 1. Center for Digestive Health, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to perform an economic analysis to identify the clinical and cost determinants of pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance in high-risk individuals (HRIs). METHODS: A Markov model was created to compare the following 3 strategies: no screening, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening. Patients were considered HRIs according to the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening consortium recommendations. Risk for developing PC, survival, and costs data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare databases. Surveillance effectiveness was obtained from a recent meta-analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of a cohort with fivefold relative risk of PC higher than the US population showed that MRI is the most cost-effective strategy. For those with the highest risk (>×20 relative risk), EUS became the dominant strategy. Our model was impacted by cost and imaging performance, but still cost-effective within the range reported in literature. Threshold analysis showed that if MRI increases greater than US $1600, EUS becomes more cost-effective. Once patients reached the age of 76 years, "no screening" was favored. Both surveillance strategies were cost-effective over a wide range of willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal imaging followed by pancreatectomy is cost-effective to prevent PC in HRIs, favoring MRI in moderate risk cases but EUS in those with highest risk.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to perform an economic analysis to identify the clinical and cost determinants of pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance in high-risk individuals (HRIs). METHODS: A Markov model was created to compare the following 3 strategies: no screening, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening. Patients were considered HRIs according to the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening consortium recommendations. Risk for developing PC, survival, and costs data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare databases. Surveillance effectiveness was obtained from a recent meta-analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of a cohort with fivefold relative risk of PC higher than the US population showed that MRI is the most cost-effective strategy. For those with the highest risk (>×20 relative risk), EUS became the dominant strategy. Our model was impacted by cost and imaging performance, but still cost-effective within the range reported in literature. Threshold analysis showed that if MRI increases greater than US $1600, EUS becomes more cost-effective. Once patients reached the age of 76 years, "no screening" was favored. Both surveillance strategies were cost-effective over a wide range of willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal imaging followed by pancreatectomy is cost-effective to prevent PC in HRIs, favoring MRI in moderate risk cases but EUS in those with highest risk.
Authors: Bryson W Katona; Jessica M Long; Nuzhat A Ahmad; Sara Attalla; Angela R Bradbury; Erica L Carpenter; Dana F Clark; Gillain Constantino; Koushik K Das; Susan M Domchek; Christina Dudzik; Jessica Ebrahimzadeh; Gregory G Ginsberg; Jordan Heiman; Michael L Kochman; Kara N Maxwell; Danielle B McKenna; Jacquelyn Powers; Payal D Shah; Kirk J Wangensteen; Anil K Rustgi Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Barbara Kenner; Suresh T Chari; David Kelsen; David S Klimstra; Stephen J Pandol; Michael Rosenthal; Anil K Rustgi; James A Taylor; Adam Yala; Noura Abul-Husn; Dana K Andersen; David Bernstein; Søren Brunak; Marcia Irene Canto; Yonina C Eldar; Elliot K Fishman; Julie Fleshman; Vay Liang W Go; Jane M Holt; Bruce Field; Ann Goldberg; William Hoos; Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue; Debiao Li; Graham Lidgard; Anirban Maitra; Lynn M Matrisian; Sung Poblete; Laura Rothschild; Chris Sander; Lawrence H Schwartz; Uri Shalit; Sudhir Srivastava; Brian Wolpin Journal: Pancreas Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Kasper A Overbeek; Iris J M Levink; Brechtje D M Koopmann; Femme Harinck; Ingrid C A W Konings; Margreet G E M Ausems; Anja Wagner; Paul Fockens; Casper H van Eijck; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Olivier R C Busch; Marc G Besselink; Barbara A J Bastiaansen; Lydi M J W van Driel; Nicole S Erler; Frank P Vleggaar; Jan-Werner Poley; Djuna L Cahen; Jeanin E van Hooft; Marco J Bruno Journal: Gut Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 31.793
Authors: Michael Goggins; Kasper Alexander Overbeek; Randall Brand; Sapna Syngal; Marco Del Chiaro; Detlef K Bartsch; Claudio Bassi; Alfredo Carrato; James Farrell; Elliot K Fishman; Paul Fockens; Thomas M Gress; Jeanin E van Hooft; R H Hruban; Fay Kastrinos; Allison Klein; Anne Marie Lennon; Aimee Lucas; Walter Park; Anil Rustgi; Diane Simeone; Elena Stoffel; Hans F A Vasen; Djuna L Cahen; Marcia Irene Canto; Marco Bruno Journal: Gut Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Bechien U Wu; Eva Lustigova; Qiaoling Chen; Elizabeth Y Dong; Anirban Maitra; Suresh T Chari; Ziding Feng; Jo Ann Rinaudo; Lynn M Matrisian; Rex A Parker Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.396