Download PDF
Rofo 2022; 194(01): 29-38
DOI: 10.1055/a-1502-7830
Review

Cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology: methods, results and implications

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Matthias F. Froelich 
1   Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Germany
,
Wolfgang G. Kunz
2   Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
,
Fabian Tollens
1   Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Germany
,
Moritz L. Schnitzer
2   Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
,
Stefan O. Schönberg
1   Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Germany
,
Clemens G. Kaiser
1   Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Germany
,
Johannes Rübenthaler
2   Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Diagnostic radiological examinations as well as interventional radiological therapies are performed at a steadily increasing rate amidst increasingly limited resources in healthcare systems. Given their potential to contribute decisively to optimized therapy, in most cases associated short-term direct costs can be well justified from a clinical perspective. However, to realize their clinical benefits, they must also succeed in justifying them to payers and policymakers. Therefore, the aim of this work is to present suitable methods for economic analysis of radiological precedures and to elaborate their relevance for radiology.

Methodology Methods and metrics of cost-effectiveness analysis are presented and then exemplified using the example cases of MR mammography and interventional treatment of oligometastatic tumor disease of the liver.

Results Cost-effectiveness considerations, taking into account long-term gains in lifespan and quality of life, as well as potential savings through improved treatment planning, do often objectively and credibly justify short-term additional costs.

Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analyses performed with radiological and health economic expertise can support the establishment of new radiological technologies in diagnostics and therapy.

Key Points: 

  • When radiological procedures are employed, short-term costs are often offset by significant long-term benefits.

  • Radiological examinations and therapies must be justified in the context of limited economic resources.

  • Economic methodologies can be used to quantify the quality and cost-effectiveness of radiological methods.

  • Such analyses as well as targeted training should be encouraged to provide greater transparency.

Citation Format

  • Froelich MF, Kunz WG, Tollens F et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology: methods, results and implications. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 29 – 38

Key words

cost-effectiveness - health economics - healthcare policy

Ergänzendes Material/Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 20 December 2020

Accepted: 26 April 2021

Article published online:
17 June 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Mahadevia PJ, Fleisher LA, Frick KD. et al. Lung Cancer Screening With Helical Computed Tomography in Older Adult Smokers: A Decision and Cost-effectiveness Analysis. JAMA 2003; 289: 313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of CT Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. 2014 http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1056/NEJMoa1312547
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pandya A. Adding Cost-effectiveness to Define Low-Value Care. JAMA 2018; 319: 1977-1978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hunink MGM, Weinstein MC, Wittenberg E. et al. Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. Cambridge University Press; 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013 [Internet] – PubMed.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cameron D, Ubels J, Norström F. On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review. Glob Health Action 2018; 11: 1447828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 McDougall JA, Furnback WE, Wang BCM. et al Understanding the global measurement of willingness to pay in health. J Mark Access Health Policy 2020; 8 [published online ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gandjour A. Willingness to pay for new medicines: a step towards narrowing the gap between NICE and IQWiG. BMC Health Serv Res 2020; 20: 343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A. et al. Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses. JAMA 2016; 316: 1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S. et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Eur J Health Econ 2013; 14: 367-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie: Mammakarzinom.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E. et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773-1783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F. et al. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 2011; 46: 94-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S. et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1450-1457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ahern CH, Shih YCT, Dong W. et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for integrating MRI into breast cancer screening for women at high risk. Br J Cancer 2014; 111: 1542-1551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moore SG, Shenoy PJ, Fanucchi L. et al. Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM. et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 2091-2102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Froelich MF, Kaiser CG. Cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography as a solitary imaging technique in women with dense breasts: an economic evaluation of the prospective TK-Study. Eur Radiol 2020; 31: 967-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kaiser CG, Dietzel M, Vag T. et al Cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography vs. conventional mammography in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer – A model-based economic evaluation. Eur J Radiol 2020; 109355 [published online ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Petersen C, Gauer T. [Local ablative radiotherapy of oligometastatic colorectal cancer]. Radiol 2017; 57: 105-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Engstrand J, Nilsson H, Strömberg C. et al. Colorectal cancer liver metastases – a population-based study on incidence, management and survival. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R. et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 2016; 27: 1386-1422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ruers T, Van Coevorden F, Punt CJA. et al Local Treatment of Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Shady W, Petre EN, Do KG. et al. Percutaneous Microwave versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Ablation with Clear Margins (A0) Provides the Best Local Tumor Control. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR 2018; 29: 268-275.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gazelle GS, McMahon PM, Beinfeld MT. et al. Metastatic colorectal carcinoma: cost-effectiveness of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus that of hepatic resection. Radiology 2004; 233: 729-739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Froelich MF, Schnitzer ML, Rathmann N. et al Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Local Ablation and Surgery for Liver Metastases of Oligometastatic Colorectal Cancer. PMID: 33806059. PMCID: PMC8037107. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13071507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schnitzer ML, Froelich MF, Gassert FG. et al Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Cancers 2020; 12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Franklin M, Lomas J, Walker S. et al. An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2019; 37: 631-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 de Vries LM, van Baal PHM, Brouwer WBF. Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future. PharmacoEconomics 2019; 37: 119-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Interpretation of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses. J Gen Intern Med 1998; 13: 716-717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 1-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Fabritius MP, Holzgreve A, Knösel T. et al. Incidental Finding of Endobronchial Metastasis by 18F-FDG PET/CT Leads to Change in Management in a Patient With Rectal Adenocarcinoma. Clin Nucl Med 2020; 45: 980-981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chambers JD, Lord J, Cohen JT. et al. Illustrating Potential Efficiency Gains from Using Cost-Effectiveness Evidence to Reallocate Medicare Expenditures. Value Health 2013; 16: 629-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar