A Primer to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of the Literature

Currently, there is a multitude of methods for evaluating the costs and benefits of programs, tools, etc. While cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly used, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a more appropriate method of evaluation in clinical contexts, such as radiology practices, as CEAs use units such as life years gained as opposed to money (as is the case for CBAs). This review examines CEAs performed within the past 15 years to highlight their applications and key findings in the context of medical imaging.

In total, 20 articles published between 2006 and 2022 were identified using a PubMed search for keywords including “cost-effectiveness analysis,” “breast cancer,” and “medical imaging,” with studies lacking a substantial discussion of CEA or a related topic being excluded.

CEAs have traditionally been criticized for lack of a standard methodology, despite their utility in the detection and treatment of various pathologies. Although mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the preferred and cost-effective imaging modalities for breast cancer, other imaging modalities, such as contrast-enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, may be more cost-effective in the appropriate clinical context. Different combinations of mammography and MRI screenings for certain breast cancers may also prove to be more cost-effective compared to current mammography/MRI screening schedules.

While CEA has shown potential utility in estimating the costs (per unit of health gained) of different imaging tools, CEA risks ignoring important outcomes not included in the analysis and cannot address if the benefits of the imaging tool exceed its costs, as a CBA would, suggesting the need for combining several economic evaluations for a more complete understanding.

Ultra-low-dose CT versus chest X-ray for patients suspected of pulmonary disease at the emergency department: a multicentre randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Chest CT displays chest pathology better than chest X-ray (CXR). We evaluated the effects on health outcomes of replacing CXR by ultra-low-dose chest-CT (ULDCT) in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department.

METHODS

Pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. Between 31 January 2017 and 31 May 2018, every month, participating centres were randomly allocated to using ULDCT or CXR. Primary outcome was functional health at 28 days, measured by the Short Form (SF)-12 physical component summary scale score (PCS score), non-inferiority margin was set at 1 point. Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, hospital length of stay (LOS) and patients in follow-up because of incidental findings.

RESULTS

2418 consecutive patients (ULDCT: 1208 and CXR: 1210) were included. Mean SF-12 PCS score at 28 days was 37.0 for ULDCT and 35.9 for CXR (difference 1.1; 95% lower CI: 0.003). After ULDCT, 638/1208 (52.7%) patients were admitted (median LOS of 4.8 days; IQR 2.1-8.8) compared with 659/1210 (54.5%) patients after CXR (median LOS 4.6 days; IQR 2.1-8.8). More ULDCT patients were in follow-up because of incidental findings: 26 (2.2%) versus 4 (0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term functional health was comparable between ULDCT and CXR, as were hospital admissions and LOS, but more incidental findings were found in the ULDCT group. Our trial does not support routine use of ULDCT in the work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR6163.

Impact of 24/7/365 Attending Radiologist Coverage on the Turnaround Time in an Emergency and Trauma Radiology Department

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of 24/7/365 attending radiologist coverage on the turnaround time (TAT) of trauma and nontrauma cases in an emergency and trauma radiology department.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review in which TAT of patients coming to the emergency department between 2 periods: (1) December 1, 2012, to September 30, 2013, and (2) January 1, 2017, to January 30, 2018, and whose reports were read by an attending emergency and trauma radiologist was noted.

RESULTS

The 24/7/365 radiology coverage was associated with a significant reduction in TAT of computed tomography reports, and the time reduction was comparable between trauma and nontrauma cases. In adjusted models, the extension of radiology coverage was associated with an average of 7.83 hours reduction in overall TAT (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.44-8.22) for reports related to trauma, in which 2.73 hours were due to reduction in completion to transcription time (TC; 95% CI: 2.53-2.93), and 5.10 hours were due to reduction in transcription to finalization time (TF; 95% CI: 4.75-5.44). For reports related to nontrauma cases, 24/7/365 coverage was associated with an average of 6.07 hours reduction in overall TAT (95% CI: 3.54-8.59), 2.91 hours reduction in TC (95% CI: 1.55-4.26), and 3.16 hours reduction in TF (95% CI: 0.90-5.42).

CONCLUSION

Our pilot study demonstrates that the implementation of on-site 24/7/365 attending emergency radiology coverage at a tertiary care center was associated with a reduced TAT for trauma and nontrauma patients imaging studies. Although the magnitude and precision of estimates were slightly higher for trauma cases as compared to nontrauma cases. Trauma examinations stand to benefit the most from 24/7/365 attending level radiology coverage.

Diagnostic imaging: Doing the right thing

Inappropriate diagnostic imaging (DI) is a burgeoning issue and embraces its overuse and its misapplication. The obverse problem is one of underuse - that is when patients who should undergo imaging fail to do so. This article attempts to define these problems, examines the causes and effects and suggests some potential solutions.

Radiology Research Funding: Current State and Future Opportunities

Funding for research has become increasingly difficult to obtain in an environment of decreasing clinical revenue, increasing research costs, and growing competition for federal and nonfederal funding sources. This paper identifies critical requirements to build and sustain a successful radiology research program (eg, key personnel and leadership, research training and mentorship, infrastructure, institutional and departmental funding or support), reviews the current state of available funding for radiology (including federal, nonfederal, philanthropy, crowdfunding, and industry), and describes promising opportunities for future funding (eg, health services, comparative effectiveness, and patient-centered outcomes research). The funding climate, especially at the federal level, changes periodically, so it is important to have radiology-specific organizations such as the American College of Radiology and the Academy of Radiology Research serving as our key advocates. Key to obtaining any funding, no matter what the source, is a well-formulated grant proposal, so a review of opportunities specifically available to radiologists to develop and hone their grant-writing skills is provided. Effective and sustained funding for radiology research has the potential to cultivate young researchers, bolster quality research, and enhance health care. Those interested in pursuing research need to be aware of the ever-changing funding landscape, research priority areas, and the resources available to them to succeed. To succeed, radiology researchers need to think about diversification and flexibility in their interests, developing multidisciplinary and multi-institutional projects, and engaging a broader base of stakeholders that includes patients.

Effects of Radiation Exposure on the Cost-Effectiveness of CT Angiography and Perfusion Imaging in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

CT angiography and perfusion imaging is an important prognostic tool in the management of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of advanced imaging in patients with SAH, incorporating the risks of radiation exposure from CT angiography and CT perfusion imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The risks of radiation-induced brain cancer and cataracts were incorporated into our established decision model comparing the cost-effectiveness of CT angiography and CT perfusion imaging and transcranial Doppler sonography in SAH. Cancer risk was calculated by using National Cancer Institute methodology. The remaining input probabilities were based on literature data and a cohort at our institution. Outcomes were expected quality-adjusted life years gained, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

CT angiography and CT perfusion imaging were the dominant strategies, resulting in both better health outcomes and lower costs, even when incorporating brain cancer and cataract risks. Our results remained robust in 2-way sensitivity analyses varying the prolonged latency period up to 30 years, with either brain cancer risk up to 50 times higher than the upper 95% CI limit or the probability of cataracts from 0 to 1. Results were consistent for scenarios that considered either symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with SAH. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed our findings over a broad range of selected input parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

While risks of radiation exposure represent an important consideration, CT angiography and CT perfusion imaging remained the preferred imaging compared with transcranial Doppler sonography in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with SAH, with improved health outcomes and lower health care costs, even when modeling a significantly higher risk and shorter latency period for both cataract and brain cancer than that currently known.

Research Challenges and Opportunities for Clinically Oriented Academic Radiology Departments

Between 2004 and 2012, US funding for the biomedical sciences decreased to historic lows. Health-related research was crippled by receiving only 1/20th of overall federal scientific funding. Despite the current funding climate, there is increased pressure on academic radiology programs to establish productive research programs. Whereas larger programs have resources that can be utilized at their institutions, small to medium-sized programs often struggle with lack of infrastructure and support. To address these concerns, the Association of University Radiologists' Radiology Research Alliance developed a task force to explore any untapped research productivity potential in these smaller radiology departments. We conducted an online survey of faculty at smaller clinically funded programs and found that while they were interested in doing research and felt it was important to the success of the field, barriers such as lack of resources and time were proving difficult to overcome. One potential solution proposed by this task force is a collaborative structured research model in which multiple participants from multiple institutions come together in well-defined roles that allow for an equitable distribution of research tasks and pooling of resources and expertise. Under this model, smaller programs will have an opportunity to share their unique perspective on how to address research topics and make a measureable impact on the field of radiology as a whole. Through a health services focus, projects are more likely to succeed in the context of limited funding and infrastructure while simultaneously providing value to the field.

Utilization of cardiac computed tomography angiography and outpatient invasive coronary angiography in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Cardiac computed tomography angiography (coronary CTA) has emerged as a non-invasive method of diagnosing coronary artery disease. The extent of utilization and uptake of this technology since initiation of its funding by the government of Ontario is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to examine coronary CTA utilization and the rates of elective invasive coronary angiography and revascularization before and after funding initiation.

METHODS

We studied all coronary CTAs performed on adults in Ontario after initiation of funding. We also used an interrupted time series analysis to compare the average monthly rates of invasive angiography and revascularization before and after initiation of funding.

RESULTS

There was an initial steep increase in age-and sex-standardized rates of coronary CTA from 5.0 to 11.4/100,000 over the first two quarters after funding initiation. Afterwards, there was a gradual increase in utilization from 11.4 to 17.1/100,000 over two subsequent calendar years. There was a significant reduction in both the mean monthly outpatient invasive coronary angiography (from 20.7 to 19.9 per 100,000 (p = 0.0004)) and revascularization (from 4.9 to 4.4 per 100,000 (p < 0.0001)) rates in the three years following introduction of the coronary CTA billing code as compared to the three prior to its introduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the introduction of coronary CTA funding in Ontario, there has been a steady and controlled increase in its utilization. The increasing use of coronary CTA was associated with a reduction in both the rates of invasive angiography and revascularization.