Cost-effectiveness of an outreach program for HCC screening in patients with cirrhosis: a microsimulation modeling study

被引:0
|
作者
Gurley, Tami [1 ]
Hernaez, Ruben [2 ,3 ]
Cerda, Vanessa [1 ]
Thomas, Tynaje [1 ]
Narasimman, Manasa [4 ]
Mittal, Sukul [4 ]
Al-Hasan, Mohammed [4 ]
Daher, Darine [4 ]
Singal, Amit G. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Southwestern Med Ctr Dallas, Donnell Sch Publ Hlth, Dallas, TX USA
[2] Michael E DeBakey VA Med Ctr, Dept Med, Houston, TX USA
[3] Baylor Coll Med, Houston, TX USA
[4] Univ Texas Southwestern Med Ctr Dallas, Dept Internal Med, Dallas, TX USA
关键词
Liver cancer; Screening; Ultrasound; Outreach; Interventions; HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA SURVEILLANCE; DECOMPENSATED CIRRHOSIS; ASSOCIATION; OUTCOMES; QUALITY; DISEASE; LIFE;
D O I
10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103113
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Patients with cirrhosis are at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but few undergo guideline- recommended semi-annual screening. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrate that mailed outreach can increase screening versus visit-based screening. We estimated the costs and cost-effectiveness of an outreach strategy versus usual care. Methods We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a mailed outreach program versus usual care for HCC screening in a cohort of 10,000 patients with cirrhosis. Model inputs were based on literature review (2005-current), and costs were based on inflation-adjusted estimates from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare claims data. We conducted one-way sensitivity analyses for HCC incidence, outreach costs, efficacy of the outreach strategy to increase screening, and efficacy of curative (versus palliative) HCC treatments. Findings Mailed outreach was estimated to cost $32.45 per patient in the first year and $21.90 per patient in subsequent years. The outreach program increased the number of HCC patients detected at an early stage by 48.4% and increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 300. Cost savings from these increases offset the costs of mailed outreach. Mailed outreach remained cost-effective across a wide range of HCC incidence rates, outreach costs, efficacy of the outreach strategy to increase screening, and the efficacy of curative HCC treatments. Annual out-ofpocket patient costs in the outreach arm were low at $13 per year. Interpretation Mailed outreach to encourage HCC screening in patients with cirrhosis dominates usual care and should be considered for implementation in routine practice. Funding National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effect and cost-effectiveness of national gastric cancer screening in Japan: a microsimulation modeling study
    Hsi-Lan Huang
    Chi Yan Leung
    Eiko Saito
    Kota Katanoda
    Chin Hur
    Chung Yin Kong
    Shuhei Nomura
    Kenji Shibuya
    BMC Medicine, 18
  • [2] Effect and cost-effectiveness of national gastric cancer screening in Japan: a microsimulation modeling study
    Huang, Hsi-Lan
    Leung, Chi Yan
    Saito, Eiko
    Katanoda, Kota
    Hur, Chin
    Kong, Chung Yin
    Nomura, Shuhei
    Shibuya, Kenji
    BMC MEDICINE, 2020, 18 (01) : 257
  • [3] Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis
    Zhang, Wei
    Mohammadi, Tima
    Sou, Julie
    Anis, Aslam H.
    PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (12):
  • [4] Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Study
    Hao, Shuang
    Karlsson, Andreas
    Heintz, Emelie
    Elfstrom, K. Miriam
    Nordstrom, Tobias
    Clements, Mark
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2021, 24 (12) : 1763 - 1772
  • [5] COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF BIOMARKER-BASED SURVEILLANCE FOR HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA (HCC) IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS
    Singal, Amit G.
    Tapper, Elliot B.
    Parikh, Neehar D.
    HEPATOLOGY, 2022, 76 : S1389 - S1390
  • [6] A Microsimulation Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Screening Frequencies in Hemodialysis Centers
    Epstein, Rachel L.
    Pramanick, Tannishtha
    Baptiste, Dimitri
    Buzzee, Benjamin
    Reese, Peter P.
    Linas, Benjamin P.
    Sawinski, Deirdre
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2023, 34 (02): : 205 - 219
  • [7] Cost-effectiveness of urine-based tuberculosis screening in hospitalised patients with HIV in Africa: a microsimulation modelling study
    Reddy, Krishna P.
    Gupta-Wright, Ankur
    Fielding, Katherine L.
    Costantini, Sydney
    Zheng, Amy
    Corbett, Elizabeth L.
    Yu, Liyang
    Van Oosterhout, Joep J.
    Resch, Stephen C.
    Wilson, Douglas P.
    Horsburgh, C. Robert, Jr.
    Wood, Robin
    Alufandika-Moyo, Melanie
    Peters, Jurgens A.
    Berg, Kenneth A. Freed
    Lawn, Stephen D.
    Walensky, Rochelle P.
    LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH, 2019, 7 (02): : E200 - E208
  • [8] Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in an organized screening program
    Krzeczewski, Bartlomiej
    Hassan, Cesare
    Krzeczewska, Olga
    Wieszczy, Paulina
    Pisera, Malgorzata
    Ciopinska-Chaber, Anna
    Rupinski, Maciej
    Sliwczynski, Andrzej
    Pastusiak, Radoslaw
    Regula, Jaroslaw
    Kaminski, Michal F.
    POLISH ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE-POLSKIE ARCHIWUM MEDYCYNY WEWNETRZNEJ, 2021, 131 (02): : 128 - 135
  • [9] The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study
    Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M.
    Verkleij, Mirjam L.
    Carlton, Jill
    Horwood, Anna M.
    Fronius, Maria
    Kik, Jan
    Sloot, Frea
    Vladutiu, Cristina
    Simonsz, Huibert J.
    Koning, Harry J. de
    EUS euro REEN Foundation, for the E. U. S. euro R. E. E. N.
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE REPORTS, 2022, 28
  • [10] The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: Evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand
    Szeto, KL
    Devlin, NJ
    HEALTH POLICY, 1996, 38 (02) : 101 - 115