Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound as Diagnostic Options for Unclear Cystic Renal Lesions: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract

Purpose Correct differentiation between malignant and benign incidentally found cystic renal lesions has critical implications for patient management. In several studies contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) showed higher sensitivity with respect to the accurate characterization of these lesions compared to MRI, but the cost-effectiveness of CEUS has yet to be investigated. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of CEUS as an alternative imaging method to MRI for the characterization of incidentally found cystic renal lesions.

Materials and Methods A decision model including the diagnostic modalities MRI and CEUS was created based on Markov simulations estimating lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The recent literature was reviewed to obtain model input parameters. The deterministic sensitivity of diagnostic parameters and costs was determined and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo Modelling was applied. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was assumed to be $ 100 000/QALY.

Results In the base-case scenario, the total costs for CEUS were $9654.43, whereas the total costs for MRI were $9675.03. CEUS resulted in an expected effectiveness of 8.06 QALYs versus 8.06 QALYs for MRI. Therefore, from an economic point of view, CEUS was identified as an adequate diagnostic alternative to MRI. Sensitivity analysis showed that results may vary if CEUS costs increase or those of MRI decrease.

Conclusion Based on the results of the analysis, the use of CEUS was identified as a cost-effective diagnostic strategy for the characterization of incidentally found cystic renal lesions.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Die Unterscheidung zwischen malignen und benignen zufällig entdeckten zystischen Läsionen der Niere ist essenziell für weitere Behandlungsstrategien. In einigen Studien zeigte kontrastverstärkter Ultraschall (CEUS) im Vergleich zur Magnetresonanztomografie (MRT) eine höhere Sensitivität bei der Charakterisierung dieser Läsionen. Eine Analyse der Kosteneffektivität von CEUS steht jedoch noch aus. Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Kosteneffektivität von CEUS als alternative bildgebende Methode zur MRT bei der Charakterisierung zufällig entdeckter zystischer Nierenläsionen zu analysieren.

Material and Methode Basierend auf Markov-Simulationen wurde unter Einbezug der Modalitäten MRT und CEUS ein Entscheidungsmodell entwickelt, welches die „lifetime costs” und die „Quality-adjusted life-years “(QALYs) der Methoden analysiert. Die Modellparameter wurden durch Recherche aktueller Literatur gewonnen. Es wurden die deterministische Sensitivität der Parameter sowie die Kosten bestimmt. Mittels Monte-Carlo-Modellierung wurde eine probabilistische Sensitivitätsanalyse durchgeführt. Die „Willingness to pay” (WTP) wurde auf $100 000/QALY festgelegt.

Ergebnisse Im Base-case-Szenario ergaben sich für CEUS absolute Kosten von $ 9654,43 und für MRT von $ 9675,03. Die erwartete Effektivität lag sowohl bei CEUS als auch bei MRT bei 8,06 QALYs. Aus ökonomischer Sicht konnte CEUS daher als sinnvolle Alternative zur MRT identifiziert werden. Die Sensitivitätsanalyse zeigte, dass diese Ergebnisse abhängig von den Kosten von CEUS und MRT variieren können.

Schlussfolgerung Basierend auf den Ergebnissen dieser Studie konnte CEUS als kosteneffektive diagnostische Alternative gegenüber MRT in Bezug auf die Charakterisierung zufällig entdeckter zystischer Nierenläsionen identifiziert werden.

Key words

ultrasound - contrast-enhanced ultrasound - cost effectiveness - renal lesions - magnetic resonance imaging

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 20. Oktober 2019

Angenommen: 14. Januar 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Februar 2020

• References

• 1 Seppala N, Kielar A, Dabreo D. et al. Inter-rater agreement in the characterization of cystic renal lesions on contrast-enhanced MRI. Abdominal imaging 2014; 39: 1267-1273
• 2 Elstob A, Gonsalves M, Patel U. Diagnostic modalities. International journal of surgery (London, England) 2016; 36: 504-512
• 3 Richard PO, Violette PD, Jewett MA. et al. CUA guideline on the management of cystic renal lesions. Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada 2017; 11: E66-E73
• 4 de Groot S, Redekop WK, Versteegh MM. et al. Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Quality of life research: an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 2018; 27: 115-124
• 5 Barr RG, Peterson C, Hindi A. Evaluation of indeterminate renal masses with contrast-enhanced US: a diagnostic performance study. Radiology 2014; 271: 133-142
• 6 Chang EH, Chong WK, Kasoji SK. et al. Management of Indeterminate Cystic Kidney Lesions: Review of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound as a Diagnostic Tool. Urology 2016; 87: 1-10
• 7 Gulati M, King KG, Gill IS. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of cystic and solid renal lesions: a review. Abdominal imaging 2015; 40: 1982-1996
• 8 Rubenthaler J, Mueller-Peltzer K, Negrao de Figueiredo G. et al. [CEUS-diagnostic workup of cystic renal lesions]. Der Radiologe 2018; 58: 545-552
• 9 Ferreira AM, Reis RB, Kajiwara PP. et al. MRI evaluation of complex renal cysts using the Bosniak classification: a comparison to CT. Abdominal radiology (New York) 2016; 41: 2011-2019
• 10 Hindman NM. Cystic renal masses. Abdominal radiology (New York) 2016; 41: 1020-1034
• 11 Zhou L, Tang L, Yang T. et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound with MRI in the diagnosis of complex cystic renal masses: a meta-analysis. Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden: 1987) 2018; 59: 1254-1263
• 12 Chang EH. An Introduction to Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Nephrologists. Nephron 2018; 138: 176-185
• 13 Ascenti G, Mazziotti S, Zimbaro G. et al. Complex cystic renal masses: characterization with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 2007; 243: 158-165
• 14 Defortescu G, Cornu JN, Bejar S. et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of complex renal cysts: A prospective study. International journal of urology: official journal of the Japanese Urological Association 2017; 24: 184-189
• 15 Arias E, Xu J, Kochanek KD. United States Life Tables, 2016. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System 2019; 68: 1-66
• 16 Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT. et al. Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline. The Journal of urology 2013; 190: 407-416
• 17 Hollenbeak CS, Nikkel LE, Schaefer EW. et al. Determinants of medicare all-cause costs among elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma. Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 2011; 17: 610-620
• 18 Jiang J, Zheng X, Qin J. et al. Health-related quality of life after hand-assisted laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomies of renal cell carcinoma. International urology and nephrology 2009; 41: 23-27
• 19 Bensalah K, Pantuck AJ, Crepel M. et al. Prognostic variables to predict cancer-related death in incidental renal tumours. BJU international 2008; 102: 1376-1380
• 20 Krabbe LM, Bagrodia A, Margulis V. et al. Surgical management of renal cell carcinoma. Seminars in interventional radiology 2014; 31: 27-32
• 21 Orosco RK, Tapia VJ, Califano JA. et al. Positive Surgical Margins in the 10 Most Common Solid Cancers. Scientific reports 2018; 8: 5686
• 22 Noone AMHN, Krapcho M, Miller D. et al SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2015, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/ , based on November 2017 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2018
• 23 Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A. et al. Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Jama 2016; 316: 1093-1103
• 24 Meyer HJ, Pfeil A, Schramm D. et al. Renal incidental findings on computed tomography: Frequency and distribution in a large non selected cohort. Medicine 2017; 96: e7039
• 25 Sevcenco S, Spick C, Helbich TH. et al. Malignancy rates and diagnostic performance of the Bosniak classification for the diagnosis of cystic renal lesions in computed tomography – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 2239-2247
• 26 Faccioli N, Dietrich CF, Foti G. et al. Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Including Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Diagnostic Pathway of Focal Pancreatic Lesions Detected by Abdominal Ultrasound. Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany: 1980) 2019;
• 27 Tanaka H, Iijima H, Nouso K. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis on the surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in liver cirrhosis patients using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Hepatology research: the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology 2012; 42: 376-384
• 28 Westwood M, Joore M, Grutters J. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue(R) (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2013; 17: 1-243
• 29 Smajerova M, Petrasova H, Little J. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the evaluation of incidental focal liver lesions: A cost-effectiveness analysis. World journal of gastroenterology 2016; 22: 8605-8614
• 30 Caoili EM, Davenport MS. Role of percutaneous needle biopsy for renal masses. Seminars in interventional radiology 2014; 31: 20-26