Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UTS BUSINESS SCHOOL UTS CRICOS PROVIDER CODE: 00099F
Economic evaluation of contrast-enhanced liver MRI in the characterisation of suspected liver lesions 17 MARCH 2016 ISPOR-AC CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC MODELLING – STATE OF THE ART
Sopany Saing, Phil Haywood, Stephen Goodall
chere.uts.edu.au
CONTEXT
• Making a funding decision – MSAC on behalf of RANZCR
• Diagnostic imaging – use in clinical practice and impact on the patient
• Lack of direct evidence
• Improved clinical outcomes for the patient will require behavioural change by clinicians.
chere.uts.edu.au
ECONOMIC RESEARCH QUESTION
• In patients with known extrahepatic malignancy with suspected or possible liver metastasis, what is the cost-effectiveness of contrast enhanced MRI in lesion characterisation compared to contrast enhanced CT scan?
Population:
• known extrahepatic malignancy who are being considered by a specialist for hepatic therapies
• previous liver imaging from staging – pathology indeterminate
• use of hepatobiliary specific contrast agent
chere.uts.edu.au
ECONOMIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Reference Study type
MRI contrast used Comparators Total cost
Total Effectiveness (LYS, QALYs, Other)
Mann, 2001 CA manganese (Teslascan®) CE-CT
MRI cost saving due to avoided unneccessary nontherapeutic operation NA
Schultz, 1999 CA SPIO (Feridex®) CE-CT
Cost savings of USD$1,901 per patient in the study due to biopsies and laparotomies avoided NA
Zech, 2009 CA (Primovist®) ECCM-MRI vs. CT
CT cheapest in Germany and Italy, PVMIR cheapest in Sweden NA
Yip, 2014 CEA Gd or (Primovist®) CT + PET
Upfront: USD$4368 Sequential: USD$3947 Hybrid: USD$3850
Average time to decision (weeks) - Upfront: 3.00 Sequential: 4.09 and Hybrid: 2.74
Annemans, 2008 CEA
SPIO (Resovist®) CE-CT
MRI: €18,416 and CT: €16,972 (MRI cheaper)
LYs - MRI: 2.878 and CT:3.011 (MRI less)
Westwood, 2013 CUA
Gd,Primovist® and SPIO
CE-US and CE-CT CT < CEUS < MRI
Base case has same LY and QALYs
chere.uts.edu.au
LIVER METASTASIS
• Metastasis in the liver are common due to the liver’s dual blood supply
• Liver metastasis are reported to be 20 - 50 x more common than primary liver cancers.
• Treatment algorithms:
Curative options: tumours are resected Non-curative options: unresectable disease (due to the size and number
of tumours present), chemotherapy or palliative care.
chere.uts.edu.au
WHY COLORECTAL CARCINOMA?
Primary cancer
Incidence of primary cancer in Australia (AIHW) (2012-13)
Incidence of liver metastasis (base case)
Estimated incidence of primary cancer with liver metastasis
Estimated proportion of primary cancer with liver metastasis
Colorectal 24,786 33% 8179 62%
Breast 25,117 0.60% 151 1%
Pancreas 6,020 46% 2769 21%
Neurendocrine 5,260 32.70% 1720 13%
Oesophagus (and stomach) 4,341 10.00% 434 3%
chere.uts.edu.au
• Colorectal carcinoma is the leading cause of liver metastasis
CLINICAL PRACTICE ALGORITHM FOR MRI OF THE LIVER
chere.uts.edu.au
Comparators Proposed service
Patients with extrahepatic cancer with suspected liver metastasis
Pathology indeterminate
No pathology or unresectable disease
Pathology confirmed
CT Intraoperative US Biopsy
Pathology indeterminate
Diagnosis confirmed
Treatment as appropriate
Further imaging or diagnostic
Diagnosis confirmed
Pathology indeterminate
MRI with contrast
Cease investigation
MRI VS. CT
chere.uts.edu.au
MRI CT Method magnetic fields a series of x-rays Time taken patients are to lie within the
machine for 10-15 minutes, little movement as possible, anaesthetic or sedation may be required.
less than a minute, less sensitive to patient movement
Radiation exposure
no exposure exposure to ionising radiation
Limitations contraindications (e.g, an implanted pacemaker, metal implants).
allows patients with metal implants
Availability fewer machines many machines
MRI CT
chere.uts.edu.au
CONTRAST MRI
chere.uts.edu.au
CONTRAST AGENT FOR MRI
gadoxetic acid* gadobenate dimeglumine Brand name Primovist® MultiHance®
Type Hepatobiliary-specific Intracellular agent
Proposed MBS price $300 $44.80
Hepatic uptake 50% 3-5%
Delay for hepatobiliary phase images
20 min (no additional session required)
90 min (additional session required)
chere.uts.edu.au
Contrast agents for liver MRI: Intracellular vs. Extracellular Hepatobiliary specific intracellular vs. other intracellular.
*disodium gadoxetate. Price provided in proposal.
DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY
chere.uts.edu.au
Source: Duncan J, Scarfe A, Garrod T, Riitano D, Vreugdenburg T, Ma N Cameron A, Saing S, Goodall S (2015). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of liver lesions. MSAC Application 1372, Assessment Report. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT
Sensitivity of CE-MRI compared with CT for CRC liver metastases
CLINICAL EVIDENCE - SUMMARY
Comparator Diagnostic accuracy - sensitivity
Diagnostic accuracy - specificity
Observed patient benefit from clinical trials
Safety outcomes
CE-CT CE-MRI superior
CE-MRI equivalent
CE-MRI equivalent based on similar accuracy
CE-MRI equivalent and avoids radiation exposure risk
chere.uts.edu.au
DECISION TREE: EXTRAHEPATIC MALIGNANCY WITH SUSPECTED LIVER METASTASES
chere.uts.edu.au
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS - STRUCTURAL
• Costs and benefits are not captured beyond 12 months due to the absence of long-term clinical data (conservative).
• Impact on early health care resource use.
• An additional specialist visit within the year to monitor primary cancer.
chere.uts.edu.au
MODEL ASSUMPTION - CLINICAL
Improved diagnosis leads to earlier detection of resectable liver metastasis.
metastases - receive appropriate treatment (curative or non-curative)
no metastases - watch and wait strategy
Incorrect diagnosis - (cost of an MRI for patients who receive a false positive or false negative test).
false negative = reduced (50%) chance of having a curable metastasis compared to a true positive. Impact of delayed treatment and severity of health state. Same survival but utility decrement applied
false positive = unnecessary surgery (costs and utility of unnecessary surgery)
These are tested in a scenario analysis.
chere.uts.edu.au
COSTS: MRI AND CT TEST
chere.uts.edu.au
Resource Cost Total cost Reference
CE-MRI
Proposed MRI item $425.00 Estimated as 85% of proposed fee
Proposed MRI co-payment $75.00 Estimated as 15% of proposed fee
$500.00
General anaesthetic and sedation $2.49 Weighted average of MBS itemsa
Hepatobiliary specific contrast Primovist® $255 Estimated as 85% of unreimbursed fee
Hepatobiliary specific contrast Primovist® co-payment $45.00 Estimated as 15% of unreimbursed fee
Total additional MRI cost $302.49 Contrast, general anaesthetic/sedation [$7.66, $1,115.85]
Total (MBS fee + contrast) $802.49
CE-CT
MBS benefit (includes contrast) $264.88 MBS items 56401, 56407, 56441, 56447
MBS co-payment $29.37 Department of Health for 2013-2014
$294.25 [$110.71, $336.03] a(weighted average of MBS items 17610, 17615, 17620, 17625) + (weighted average of MBS items 17640, 17645, 17650, 17655) + MBS 21922
COSTS: TREATMENT
Description Base Low High Source
Costs
Cost of surgery if TP $7,794.20 $3,897.10 $28,751.85 AR-DRG
Cost of surgery if FN $6,713.25 $3,356.62 $24,764.37 PBS, MBS and Kardamanidis, 2007
Cost of non-curative if TP $8,621.49 $4,310.74 $31,712.15 AR-DRG, and MRI
Cost of non-curative if FN $7,515.74 $190.28 $27,724.66 PBS, MBS, Kardamanidis, 2007 and MRI
Cost of no metastases if FP $802.49 $20.32 $2,960.29 Cost of MRI
Cost of no metastases if TP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Assumption
chere.uts.edu.au
Assumed lower and upper estimates by calculating the inverse of the gamma cumulative distribution. Gamma distribution applied to costs for PSA.
MODEL PARAMETERS – PROBABILITIES
Description Base Low High Source Probabilities Prevalence of liver metastasis 0.4 0.2 0.8 Westwood, 2013 and Saunders, 2002 MRI sensitivity 0.94 0.91 0.96 Pooled from clinical literature MRI specificity 0.97 0.97 0.97 Scharitzer, 2013 CT sensitivity 0.77 0.67 0.84 Pooled from clinical literature CT specificity 0.97 0.95 1 Scharitzer, 2013 Probability of curable disease TP 0.2 0.1 0.4
Kanas, 2012 and expert opinion Probability of curable disease FN 0.1 0.05 0.2 Survival Survival of curative liver metastasis 0.75 0.71 0.79
Westwood, 2013 Survival of non-curative liver metastasis 0.57 0.40 0.67 Survival of no metastasis 0.97 0.96 0.97
chere.uts.edu.au
95% confidence intervals for diagnostic accuracy as reported in literature. Beta distribution applied to probabilities for PSA.
MODEL PARAMATERS - UTILITIES
chere.uts.edu.au
Description Base Low High Distribution Source Utility Utility of metastases curative TP 0.78 0.27 1
Beta Wiering, 2011 Utility of metastases non-curative TP 0.67 0 1 Disutility for delayed surgery FN 0.3 0.46 0.46
Gamma Wiering, 2011 and Westwood, 2013 Disutility for delayed palliative care FN 0.2 0.36 0.36
Utility of unnecessary surgery FP 0.74 0.47 1 Langenhoff 2006 Utility of no metastasis TN 0.85 0.58 1 Beta Ramsey, 2000
RESULTS: BASE CASE
Cost Benefit ICER Additional case detected* MRI $4,063 0.48 - CT $3,566 0.41 - Incremental outcomes $497 0.07 $6,929 QALY MRI $3,740 0.66 - CT $3,311 0.65 - Incremental outcomes $429 0.01 $40,548
chere.uts.edu.au
*Based on a simplified decision tree (ignoring curative and non-curative treatments options after diagnosis)
RESULTS: SCENARIO ANALYSIS
chere.uts.edu.au
Cost QALY ICER (cost per QALY gained) Sensitivity analysis All receive MultiHance® (gadobentate dimeglumine contrast) and therefore MBS item 63491 is claimed MRI $3,474 0.66 - CT $3,282 0.65 - Incremental outcomes $192 0.01 $29,404 No unnecessary surgical treatment for FP same as TN MRI $3,339 0.66 - CT $3,118 0.65 - Incremental outcomes $220 0.01 $44,827 Probability of curable metastasis same for TP and FN MRI $3,742 0.66 - CT $3,321 0.65 - Incremental outcomes $421 0.01 $42,448
RESULTS: ONE-WAY SENSITIVITY
chere.uts.edu.au
RESULTS: PROBABILISTIC SENSITIVITY
chere.uts.edu.au
RESULTS • Compared to current practice (CE-CT), the cost effectiveness of CE-MRI
is $40,548 per QALY gained.
• Model is short term and only captures early health care resource use.
• Evidence of potential benefits associated with CE-MRI for the diagnosis of liver metastases in patients with identified colorectal carcinoma. CE-MRI can be recommended as cost effective provided that improved diagnostic accuracy results in earlier, curative disease management.
• Main drivers of the model:
• cost of the MRI contrast agent used ($44 vs. $300 per patient)
• cost of non-curative treatment,
• prevalence of liver metastases,
• diagnostic accuracy of CE-CT
• and the utility decrement for delayed non-curative care
chere.uts.edu.au
LIMITATIONS
• Modelling assumption – linked evidence
• Generalisability of results to other primary cancers
• Lack of long-term clinical data linking test results to longer term outcomes, no recurrence of metastasis
• Patients who do have their liver metastasis diagnosed and treated still have colorectal cancer
• Neo-adjuvant therapy has not been modelled
chere.uts.edu.au
DISCUSSION
• CE-MRI can be recommended as cost effective provided that improved diagnostic accuracy results in earlier, curative, disease management.
• Unclear if an improvement in diagnostic accuracy will necessarily translate into improved clinical outcomes for the patient. This may be due to the requirement of behavioural change by clinicians.
• Utilisation is uncertain
• additive vs. substitution
• in patients where there may be few benefits
• Value of information regardless of change in clinical management?
chere.uts.edu.au
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• ASERNIPS (Royal Australasian College of Surgeons):
Joanna Duncan, Anje Scarfe, Tamsin Garrod, Dagmara Riitano, Tom Vreudgenburg, Ning Ma and Alun Cameron • Department of Health on behalf of the Medical Services Advisory
Committee (MSAC)
• Clinical feedback:
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, radiologist (Dr Frank Voyvodic), oncologist (Dr Tim Price) and liver surgeon (Professor Guy Maddern)
chere.uts.edu.au
QUESTIONS?
chere.uts.edu.au
THANK YOU.
chere.uts.edu.au