Cost-Utility Analysis of Non-Contrast Abbreviated Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Cirrhosis

dc.contributor.authorDecharatanachart P.
dc.contributor.authorPan-Ngum W.
dc.contributor.authorPeeraphatdit T.
dc.contributor.authorTanpowpong N.
dc.contributor.authorTangkijvanich P.
dc.contributor.authorTreeprasertsuk S.
dc.contributor.authorRerknimitr R.
dc.contributor.authorChaiteerakij R.
dc.contributor.correspondenceDecharatanachart P.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-08T18:09:15Z
dc.date.available2024-02-08T18:09:15Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-15
dc.description.abstractBackground/Aims: Ultrasonography has a low sensitivity for detecting early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients. Non-contrast abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (aMRI) demonstrated a comparable performance to that of magnetic resonance imaging without the risk of contrast media exposure and at a lower cost than that of full diagnostic MRI. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of non-contrast aMRI for HCC surveillance in cirrhotic patients, using ultrasonography with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) as a reference. Methods: Cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model in Thailand and the United States. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using the total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained in each strategy. Surveillance protocols were considered cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay value of $4,665 (160,000 Thai Baht) in Thailand and $50,000 in the United States. Results: aMRI was cost-effective in both countries with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $3,667/QALY in Thailand and $37,062/QALY in the United States. Patient-level microsimulations showed consistent findings that aMRI was cost-effective in both countries. By probabilistic sensitivity analysis, aMRI was found to be more cost-effective than combined ultrasonography and AFP with a probability of 0.77 in Thailand and 0.98 in the United States. By sensitivity analyses, annual HCC incidence was revealed as the most influential factor affecting cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of aMRI increased in settings with a higher HCC incidence. At a higher HCC incidence, aMRI would remain cost-effective at a higher aMRI-to-ultrasonography with AFP cost ratio. Conclusions: Compared to ultrasonography with AFP, non-contrast aMRI is a cost-effective strategy for HCC surveillance and may be useful for such surveillance in cirrhotic patients, especially in those with high HCC risks.
dc.identifier.citationGut and liver Vol.18 No.1 (2024) , 135-146
dc.identifier.doi10.5009/gnl230089
dc.identifier.eissn20051212
dc.identifier.pmid37560799
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85182501513
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/95615
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.titleCost-Utility Analysis of Non-Contrast Abbreviated Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Cirrhosis
dc.typeArticle
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85182501513&origin=inward
oaire.citation.endPage146
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.startPage135
oaire.citation.titleGut and liver
oaire.citation.volume18
oairecerif.author.affiliationFaculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University
oairecerif.author.affiliationKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
oairecerif.author.affiliationFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University

Files

Collections