Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Health-economic evaluation of three imaging strategies in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI vs. extracellular contrast media-enhanced MRI and 3-phase MDCT in Germany, Italy and Sweden

  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of hepatocyte-specific Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI (PV-MRI) compared to extracellular contrast-media-enhanced MRI (ECCM-MRI) and three-phase-MDCT as initial modalities in the work-up of patients with metachronous colorectal liver metastases. The economic evaluation was performed with a decision-tree model designed to estimate all aggregated costs depending on the initial investigation. Probabilities on the need for further imaging to come to a treatment decision were collected through interviews with 13 pairs of each a radiologist and a liver surgeon in Germany, Italy and Sweden. The rate of further imaging needed was 8.6% after initial PV-MRI, 18.5% after ECCM-MRI and 23.5% after MDCT. Considering the cost of all diagnostic work-up, intra-operative treatment changes and unnecessary surgery, a strategy starting with PV-MRI with 959 € was cost-saving compared to ECCM-MRI (1,123 €) and MDCT (1,044 €) in Sweden. In Italy and Germany, PV-MRI was cost-saving compared to ECCM-MRI and had total costs similar to MDCT. In conclusion, our results indicate that PV-MRI can lead to cost savings by improving pre-operative planning and decreasing intra-operative changes. The higher cost of imaging with PV-MRI is offset in such a scenario by lower costs for additional imaging and less intra-operative changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunink MG, Krestin GP (2002) Study design for concurrent development, assessment, and implementation of new diagnostic imaging technology. Radiol 222:604–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fusai G, Davidson BR (2003) Management of colorectal liver metastases. Colorectal Dis 5:2–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ruers T, Bleichrodt RP (2002) Treatment of liver metastases, an update on the possibilities and results. Eur J Cancer 38:1023–1033

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Annemans L, Lencioni R, Warie H et al (2008) Health economic evaluation of ferucarbotran-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of liver metastases in colorectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:77–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Huppertz A, Balzer T, Blakeborough A et al (2004) Improved detection of focal liver lesions at MR imaging: multicenter comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images with intraoperative findings. Radiology 230:266–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A et al (2005) Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT—initial observations. Radiology 234:468–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Halavaara J, Breuer J, Ayuso C et al (2006) Liver tumor characterization: comparison between liver-specific gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI and biphasic CT—a multicenter trial. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:345–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bluemke DA, Sahani D, Amendola M et al (2005) Efficacy and safety of MR imaging with liver-specific contrast agent: US multicenter phase-III study. Radiology 237:89–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J et al (2008) Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist®)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: Comparison to intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 18:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schima W, Kulinna C, Langenberger H et al (2005) Liver metastases of colorectal cancer: US, CT or MR? Cancer Imaging 5(Spec no A):S149–S156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deutsche Krankenhausgesellschaft DKG-NT Band I /BG-T (2007)Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

  12. Lombardy Regional Tariffs (2007) Regione Lombardia, Milano, 2007. Available from: http://www.sanita.regione.lombardia.it/. Accessed 2007-05-16

  13. Price List SRVN Malmö/Lund (2007) Lund: Södra Regionvårdsnämnden

  14. Ifap Index–Die Arzneimitteldatenbank (2007) IfAp Service - Institut für Ärzte und Apotheker GmbH, Neu Golm. Available from: http://www.ifap.de. Accessed 2007-07-01

  15. National Drug Agency product list (2007) (Classe H in commercio. Determinazione AIFA 9-2-2007) Prezzi Rimborso e Mercato. L’Agenzia Italiana del farmaco (AIFA), Rome. Available from http://www.agenziafarmaco.it/aifa/servlet/section.ktml?target=&area_tematica=PREZ_RIMB_MER&section_code=AIFA_PREZ_RIMB_MER&entity_id=111.82243.1172659031689. Accessed 2007-05-16

  16. FASS–Pharmaceutical Specialties in Sweden (2007) Läkemedelsindustriföreningen, Stockholm

  17. Report of the private health insurances in Germany 2002/2003 (2003) (Die private Krankenversicherung 2002/2003. Zahlenbericht) Verband der privaten Krankenversicherung, Köln

  18. G-DRG. German diagnosis related groups (2007) Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus gGmbH [Institute for the Renumeration System in Hospitals (InEK)] Siegburg. Available from: http://www.g-drg.de/. Accessed 2007-07-05

  19. Bambini che non guariranno: una rete di assistenza pediatrica per curarli a casa. Sole 24 ore Sanità (2007) Gruppo Il Sole 24 ORE SpA, Milano. Available from http://www.saluteeuropa.it/news/2007/03/0316001.htm. Accessed 2007-05-16

  20. Lucioni C, Mazzi S, Neeser K (2004) Analisi di costo-efficacia della terapia combinata con pioglitazone nel trattamento del diabete mellito di tipo 2 in Italia. Pharmacoeconomics Italian Research Articles 6:81–93

    Google Scholar 

  21. National DRG Tariffs (2006) Tariffario Unico Convenzionale 2006. La Conferenza Stato-Regioni, Rome

  22. Price List Linköping University Hospital (2007) Linköping: Sydöstra Sjukvårdsregionen

  23. Helmberger T, Annemans L, Warie H et al (2004) Health economic evaluation of liver MRI in colorectal cancer patients. Eur Radiol 14(Suppl 1):C13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Helmberger T, Gregor M, Holzknecht N et al (2000) Effects of biphasic spiral CT, conventional and iron oxide-enhanced MRI on therapy and therapy costs in patients with focal liver lesions. Rofo 172:251–259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mann GN, Marx HF, Lai LL et al (2001) Clinical and cost effectiveness of a new hepatocellular MRI contrast agent, Mangafodipir trisodium, in the preoperative assessment of liver resectability. Ann Surg Oncol 8:573–579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schultz JF, Bell JD, Goldstein RM et al (1999) Hepatic tumor imaging using iron oxide MRI: comparison with computed tomography, clinical impact, and cost analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 6:691–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, Fleischmann KE et al (1999) Noninvasive imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: focusing the development of new diagnostic technology. Ann Intern Med 131:673–680

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest:

This work was funded by Bayer Schering Pharma.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Munich–Grosshadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    C. J. Zech

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    L. Grazioli

  3. Department of Surgery and Urology, Karolinska Institute, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    E. Jonas

  4. i3 Innovus, Stockholm, Sweden

    M. Ekman & L. Jönsson

  5. Global Health Economics, Reimbursement and Outcomes Research, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany

    R. Niebecker & S. Kienbaum

  6. Global Medical Affairs Diagnostic Imaging, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany

    S. Gschwend

  7. Global Clinical Development Diagnostic Imaging, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany

    J. Breuer

Authors
  1. C. J. Zech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Grazioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Jonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Ekman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Niebecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Gschwend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Breuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. Jönsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. S. Kienbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. J. Zech.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zech, C.J., Grazioli, L., Jonas, E. et al. Health-economic evaluation of three imaging strategies in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI vs. extracellular contrast media-enhanced MRI and 3-phase MDCT in Germany, Italy and Sweden. Eur Radiol 19 (Suppl 3), 753–763 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1432-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1432-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation