Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T08:54:37.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2020

Matthew D. Bucknor Open the ORCID record for Matthew D. Bucknor [Opens in a new window] ,
Frandics P. Chan ,
Jessica Y. Matuoka ,
Patti K. Curl  and
James G. Kahn
Matthew D. Bucknor*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
Frandics P. Chan
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Jessica Y. Matuoka
Affiliation:
Departamento de Enfermagem Médico-Circúrgica, University of São Paulo, Rua de Reitoria, 374, São Paoulo 05508-010, SP, Brazil
Patti K. Curl
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Maimonides Medical Center, 4802 10th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11219, USA
James G. Kahn
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Matthew D. Bucknor, E-mail: matthew.bucknor@ucsf.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States.

Methods

We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case.

Conclusions

Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS)High-intensity focused ultrasoundThermal ablationBone metastases
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , 2021 , e30
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Mundy, GR. Metastasis to bone: Causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:584–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catane, R, Beck, A, Inbar, Y, et al. MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) for the palliation of pain in patients with bone metastases—Preliminary clinical experience. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:163–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, B, Gianfelice, D, Inbar, Y, et al. Pain palliation in patients with bone metastases using MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery: A multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:140–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianfelice, D, Gupta, C, Kucharczyk, W, Bret, P, Havill, D, Clemons, M. Palliative treatment of painful bone metastases with MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound. Radiology. 2008;249:355–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C, Zhang, W, Fan, W, Huang, J, Zhang, F, Wu, P. Noninvasive treatment of malignant bone tumors using high-intensity focused ultrasound. Cancer. 2010;116:3934–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurwitz, MD, Ghanouni, P, Kanaev, SV, et al. Magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound for patients with painful bone metastases: Phase III trial results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106.1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Napoli, A, Anzidei, M, Marincola, BC, et al. Primary pain palliation and local tumor control in bone metastases treated with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:351–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Napoli, A, Anzidei, M, Ciolina, F, et al. MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound: Current status of an emerging technology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:1190–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Napoli, A, Anzidei, M, Marincola, BC, et al. MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound for treatment of bone metastasis. Radiographics. 2013;33:1555–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thacker, PG, Callstrom, MR, Curry, TB, et al. Palliation of painful metastatic disease involving bone with imaging-guided treatment: Comparison of patients’ immediate response to radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:510–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konski, A. Radiotherapy is a cost-effective palliative treatment for patients with bone metastasis from prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1373–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strain, E. Opioid use disorder: Epidemiology, pharmacology, clinical manifestations, course, screening, assessment, and diagnosis. In: UpToDate, Post, TW, editor. UpToDate. Waltham, MA [cited 2018 Apr 1].Google Scholar
Manjiani, D, Paul, DB, Kunnumpurath, S, et al. Availability and utilization of opioids for pain management: Global issues. Ochsner J. 2014;14:208–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Anzidei, M, Napoli, A, Sacconi, B, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for the treatment of painful bone metastases: Role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI in the assessment of clinical outcome. Radiol Med. 2016;121:905–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L, Ma, C, Meyer, J. Quality assurance for MR guided focused ultrasound treatment of bone metastasis: A clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90:S703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huisman, M, Lam, MK, Bartels, LW, et al. Feasibility of volumetric MRI-guided high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) for painful bone metastases. J Ther Ultrasound. 2014;2:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeffer, RM, Inbar, Y, Iozeffi, D, et al. A retrospective analysis of palliative MRgFUS treatment bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC). J Clin Oncol. 2017;32:e15575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaccagna, F, Giulia, B, Bazzocchi, A, et al. Palliative treatment of painful bone metastases with MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery: A two-centre study. J Ther Ultrasound. 2015;3:O51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J, Pfeffer, R, Kanaev, S, et al. MR-guided focused ultrasound for painful bone metastases: Safety when combined with chemotherapy. J Ther Ultrasound. 2015;3:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catane, R, Gianfelice, D, Kawasaki, M, et al. Pain palliation of bone metastases using magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound—Multi-center multi-trial results. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:ix463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papatheofanis, FJ, Williams, E, Chang, SD. Cost-utility analysis of the cyberknife system for metastatic spinal tumors. Neurosurgery. 2009;64:A73–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svensson, E, Christiansen, CF, Ulrichsen, SP, Rørth, MR, Sørensen, HT. Survival after bone metastasis by primary cancer type: A Danish population-based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e016022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konski, A, James, J, Hartsell, W, et al. Economic Analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 97-14: Multiple versus single fraction radiation treatment of patients with bone metastases. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32:423–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H, Rajagopalan, MS, Beriwal, S, Huq, MS, Smith, KJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of single fraction of stereotactic body radiation therapy compared with single fraction of external beam radiation therapy for palliation of vertebral bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91:556–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, E, Hoskin, P, Mitera, G, et al. Update of the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:1730–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, GD, Neumann, PJ, Basu, A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adalsteinsson, E, Toumi, M. Benefits of probabilistic sensitivity analysis—A review of NICE decisions. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2013;1:21240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, PJ, Cohen, JT, Med, MWNEJ. Updating cost-effectiveness—The curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:796–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravikumar, VK, Parker, JJ, Hornbeck, TS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of focused ultrasound, radiosurgery, and DBS for essential tremor. Mov Disord. 2017;32:1165–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, CY, Meng, L, Omer, ZB, et al. MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine fibroid treatment: A cost-effectiveness analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:361–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurup, AN, Callstrom, MR. Ablation of skeletal metastases: Current status. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:S242–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Sullivan, AK, Thompson, D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound for the treatment of uterine fibroids. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:14–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zowall, H, Cairns, JA, Brewer, C, Lamping, DL, Gedroyc, WMW, Regan, L. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for treatment of uterine fibroids. BJOG. 2008;115:653–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, KK, Bhati, MT, Ravikumar, VK, Ghanouni, P, Stein, SC, Halpern, CH. MR-guided focused ultrasound versus radiofrequency capsulotomy for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: A cost-effectiveness threshold analysis. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Bucknor et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Bucknor et al. supplementary material(File)
File 13.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bucknor et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Bucknor et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.8 KB