Purpose: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) management consists of non-invasive imaging studies (CT, MRI), with a high resource burden. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of including contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the management of PCN without risk features. Materials and methods: By using a decision-tree model in a hypothetical cohort of patients, we compared management strategy including CEUS with the latest Fukuoka consensus, European and Italian guidelines. Our strategy for BD-IPMN/MCN < 1 cm includes 1 CEUS annually. For those between 1 and 2 cm, it includes CEUS 4 times/year during the first year, then 3 times/year for 4 years and then annually. For those between 2 and 3 cm, it comprises MRI twice/year during the first one, then alternating 2 CEUS and 1 MRI yearly. Results: CEUS surveillance is the dominant strategy in all scenarios. CEUS surveillance average cost is 1,984.72 €, mean QALY 11.79 and mean ICER 181.99 €. If willingness to pay is 30,000 €, 45% of patients undergone CEUS surveillance of BDIPMN/MCN < 1 cm would be within budget. Conclusion: Guidelines strategies are very effective, but costs are relatively high from a policy perspective. CEUS surveillance may be a cost-effective strategy yielding a nearly high QALYs, an acceptable ICER, and a lower cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of including contrast-enhanced ultrasound in management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms

Faccioli, Niccolo'
;
Santi, Elena;D'Onofrio, Mirko
2022

Abstract

Purpose: Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) management consists of non-invasive imaging studies (CT, MRI), with a high resource burden. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of including contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the management of PCN without risk features. Materials and methods: By using a decision-tree model in a hypothetical cohort of patients, we compared management strategy including CEUS with the latest Fukuoka consensus, European and Italian guidelines. Our strategy for BD-IPMN/MCN < 1 cm includes 1 CEUS annually. For those between 1 and 2 cm, it includes CEUS 4 times/year during the first year, then 3 times/year for 4 years and then annually. For those between 2 and 3 cm, it comprises MRI twice/year during the first one, then alternating 2 CEUS and 1 MRI yearly. Results: CEUS surveillance is the dominant strategy in all scenarios. CEUS surveillance average cost is 1,984.72 €, mean QALY 11.79 and mean ICER 181.99 €. If willingness to pay is 30,000 €, 45% of patients undergone CEUS surveillance of BDIPMN/MCN < 1 cm would be within budget. Conclusion: Guidelines strategies are very effective, but costs are relatively high from a policy perspective. CEUS surveillance may be a cost-effective strategy yielding a nearly high QALYs, an acceptable ICER, and a lower cost.
Economic evaluation; Incidental pancreatic lesion; Optimal strategy; Quality of life; Surveillance
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11562/1058736
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact