Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Purpose We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis in which we compared a preoperative 18 FFluorocholine PET/CT-based one-stop-shop imaging strategy with current best practice in which 18 FFluorocholine PET/CT is only recommended after negative or inconclusive 99m TcTc-methoxy isobutyl isonitrile SPECT/CT for patients suffering from primary hyperparathyroidism. We investigated whether the one-stop-shop strategy performs as well as current best practice but at lower costs. Methods We developed a cohort-level state transition model to evaluate both imaging strategies respecting an intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitored treatment setting as well as a traditional treatment setting. The model reflects patients’ hospital journeys after biochemically diagnosed primary hyperparathyroidism. A cycle length of twelve months and a lifetime horizon were used. We conducted probabilistic analyses simulating 50,000 cohorts to assess joint parameter uncertainty. The incremental net monetary benefit and cost for each quality-adjusted life year were estimated. Furthermore, threshold analyses regarding the tariff of 18 FFluorocholine PET/CT and the sensitivity of 99m TcTc-methoxy isobutyl isonitrile SPECT/CT were performed. Results The simulated long-term health effects and costs were similar for both imaging strategies. Accordingly, there was no incremental net monetary benefit and the one-stop-shop strategy did not result in lower costs. These results applied to both treatment settings. The threshold analysis indicated that a tariff of €885 for 18 FFluorocholine PET/CT was required to be cost-effective compared to current best practice. Conclusion Both preoperative imaging strategies can be used interchangeably. Daily clinical practice grounds such as available local resources and patient preferences should inform policy-making on whether a hospital should implement the one-stop-shop imaging strategy.
Mossel et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: