Cost-effectiveness analysis of a non-contrast screening MRI protocol for vestibular schwannoma in patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss
- 394 Downloads
We aimed to determine if a non-contrast screening MRI is cost-effective compared to a full MRI protocol with contrast for the evaluation of vestibular schwannomas.
A decision tree was constructed to evaluate full MRI and screening MRI strategies for patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. If a patient were to have a positive screening MRI, s/he received a full MRI. Vestibular schwannoma prevalence, MRI specificity and sensitivity, and gadolinium anaphylaxis incidence were obtained through literature review. Institutional charge data were obtained using representative patient cohorts. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were completed to determine CE model threshold points for MRI performance characteristics and charges.
The mean charge for a full MRI with contrast was significantly higher than a screening MRI ($4089 ± 1086 versus $2872 ± 741; p < 0.05). The screening MRI protocol was more cost-effective than a full MRI protocol with a willingness-to-pay from $0 to 20,000 USD. Sensitivity analyses determined that the screening protocol dominated when the screening MRI charge was less than $4678, and the imaging specificity exceeded 78.2%. The screening MRI protocol also dominated when vestibular schwannoma prevalence was varied between 0 and 1000 in 10,000 people.
A screening MRI protocol is more cost-effective than a full MRI with contrast in the diagnostic evaluation of a vestibular schwannoma. A screening MRI likely also confers benefits of shorter exam time and no contrast use. Further investigation is needed to confirm the relative performance of screening protocols for vestibular schwannomas.
KeywordsMRI Cerebellopontine angle Vestibular schwannoma Asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss
The authors would like to thank Duke Financial Services for providing charge data and interpretations.
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was received for this project.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- 5.National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) (2013) ACR appropriateness criteria: hearing loss and/or vertigo. In: Agency Healthc. Res. Qual. https://www.guideline.gov/summaries/summary/47674? Accessed 21 Jul 2016
- 8.Hatipoǧlu HG, Durakoǧlugil T, Ciliz D, Yüksel E (2007) Comparison of FSE T2W and 3D FIESTA sequences in the evaluation of posterior fossa cranial nerves with MR cisternography. Diagnostic Interv Radiol 13:56–60Google Scholar
- 13.Kocaoglu M, Bulakbasi N, Ucoz T et al (2003) Comparison of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and 3D constructive interference in steady state images for predicting outcome after hearing-preservation surgery for vestibular schwannoma. Neuroradiology 45:476–481. doi: 10.1007/s00234-003-1006-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S (2010) Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health careGoogle Scholar
- 35.Shellock FG, Kanal E (1999) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:477–484. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<477::AID-JMRI33>3.0.CO;2-E CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar