• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the evaluation of incidental focal liver lesions: A cost-effectiveness analysis

M. Smajerova, H. Petrasova, J. Little, P. Ovesna, T. Andrasina, V. Valek, E. Nemcova, B. Miklosova,

. 2016 ; 22 (38) : 8605-8614.

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc17023577

AIM: To determine whether contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) as the first-line method is more cost-effective in evaluating incidentally discovered focal liver lesions (FLLs) than is computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Between 2010 and 2015, our prospective study enrolled 459 patients with incidentally found FLLs. The biological nature of FLLs was assessed by CEUS in all patients. CT or MRI examinations were added in unclear cases. The sensitivity and specificity of CEUS were calculated. The total costs of CEUS examinations and of the added examinations performed in inconclusive cases were calculated. Afterwards, the theoretical expenses for evaluating incidentally discovered FLLs using CT or MRI as the first-line method were calculated. The results were compared. RESULTS: The total cost of the diagnostic process using CEUS for all enrolled patients with FLLs was 75884 USD. When the expenses for additional CT and MRI examinations performed in inconclusive cases were added, the total cost was 90540 US dollar (USD). If all patients had been examined by CT or MR as the first-line method, the costs would have been 78897 USD or 384235 USD, respectively. The difference between the cost of CT and CEUS was 3013 USD (4%) and that between MRI and CEUS was 308352 USD (406.3%). We correctly described 97.06% of benign or malignant lesions, with 96.99% sensitivity and 97.09% specificity. Positive predictive value was 94.16% and negative predictive value was 98.52%. In cases with 4 and more lesions, malignancy is significantly more frequent and inconclusive findings significantly less frequent (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the costs of CEUS and CT in evaluating FLLs are comparable, CEUS examination is far more cost-effective in comparison to MRI.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17023577
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170830094208.0
007      
ta
008      
170720s2016 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3748/wjg.v22.i38.8605 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)27784973
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Smajerova, Miriama $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the evaluation of incidental focal liver lesions: A cost-effectiveness analysis / $c M. Smajerova, H. Petrasova, J. Little, P. Ovesna, T. Andrasina, V. Valek, E. Nemcova, B. Miklosova,
520    9_
$a AIM: To determine whether contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) as the first-line method is more cost-effective in evaluating incidentally discovered focal liver lesions (FLLs) than is computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Between 2010 and 2015, our prospective study enrolled 459 patients with incidentally found FLLs. The biological nature of FLLs was assessed by CEUS in all patients. CT or MRI examinations were added in unclear cases. The sensitivity and specificity of CEUS were calculated. The total costs of CEUS examinations and of the added examinations performed in inconclusive cases were calculated. Afterwards, the theoretical expenses for evaluating incidentally discovered FLLs using CT or MRI as the first-line method were calculated. The results were compared. RESULTS: The total cost of the diagnostic process using CEUS for all enrolled patients with FLLs was 75884 USD. When the expenses for additional CT and MRI examinations performed in inconclusive cases were added, the total cost was 90540 US dollar (USD). If all patients had been examined by CT or MR as the first-line method, the costs would have been 78897 USD or 384235 USD, respectively. The difference between the cost of CT and CEUS was 3013 USD (4%) and that between MRI and CEUS was 308352 USD (406.3%). We correctly described 97.06% of benign or malignant lesions, with 96.99% sensitivity and 97.09% specificity. Positive predictive value was 94.16% and negative predictive value was 98.52%. In cases with 4 and more lesions, malignancy is significantly more frequent and inconclusive findings significantly less frequent (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the costs of CEUS and CT in evaluating FLLs are comparable, CEUS examination is far more cost-effective in comparison to MRI.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a kontrastní látky $x chemie $7 D003287
650    _2
$a analýza nákladů a výnosů $7 D003362
650    _2
$a Česká republika $7 D018153
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a játra $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D008099
650    _2
$a nádory jater $x diagnostické zobrazování $x ekonomika $7 D008113
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $x ekonomika $7 D008279
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a počítačová rentgenová tomografie $x ekonomika $7 D014057
650    _2
$a ultrasonografie $x ekonomika $7 D014463
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Petrasova, Hana $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Little, Jirina $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Ovesna, Petra $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Andrasina, Tomas $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic. $7 gn_A_00006303
700    1_
$a Valek, Vlastimil $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Nemcova, Eva $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Miklosova, Barbora $u Miriama Smajerova, Hana Petrasova, Jirina Little, Tomas Andrasina, Vlastimil Valek, Eva Nemcova, Barbora Miklosova, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Brno, 62500 Brno, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00006918 $t World journal of gastroenterology $x 2219-2840 $g Roč. 22, č. 38 (2016), s. 8605-8614
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27784973 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20170720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170830094756 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1239258 $s 984490
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 22 $c 38 $d 8605-8614 $i 2219-2840 $m World journal of gastroenterology $n World J Gastroenterol $x MED00006918
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20170720

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...