Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26905871›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2016

Cost evaluation of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal-cancer metastasis in the liver: Results from the VALUE Trial.

Christoph J Zech, Nahila Justo, Andrea Lang, Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah, Myeong-Jin Kim, Harald Rinde, Eduard Jonas

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Liver metastases: The role of magnetic resonance imaging.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Christoph J ZechClinic of Radiology und Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. Christoph.Zech@usb.ch.
Nahila JustoLife Sciences, OptumInsight, Stockholm, Sweden.
Andrea LangLife Sciences, OptumInsight, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ahmed Ba-SsalamahDepartment of Radiology, General Hospital of Vienna (AKH), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Myeong-Jin KimSeverance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Harald RindeBioBridge Strategies, Binningen, Switzerland.
Eduard JonasDepartment of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska University Hospital · SEMedical University of Vienna · ATUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the costs of diagnostic workup and surgery of three strategies for patients with colorectal cancer liver-metastases (CRCLM): gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI), MRI with extracellular contrast-media (ECCM-MRI) or contrast-enhanced MDCT (CE-MDCT).

methodsThe within-trial cost evaluation was modelled as a decision-tree to calculate the cost of diagnosis and surgery. The model used clinical outcomes and resource utilization data from a prospective randomized multicentre study. Analyses were performed for the 354-patient safety population from eight participating countries.

resultsThe diagnostic workup cost using Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI upfront resulted in savings compared to ECCM-MRI in all countries except Thailand (difference <2 %). Compared to CE-MDCT, initial imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI was less costly in all countries except Korea and Spain (differences 4 and 8 %, respectively). Significantly more patients in the Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI group were eligible for surgery (39.3 % (48/122) vs. 31.0 % (36/116) and 26.7 % (31/116) for ECCM-MRI and CE-MDCT, respectively), allowing more patients to undergo potentially curative surgery, but resulting in higher treatment costs for the strategy starting with Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI.

conclusionsThe benefits of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI due to less additional imaging and similar diagnostic workup costs in the three groups suggest that Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI should be the preferred initial imaging procedure to evaluate hepatic resectability in patients with CRCLM. KEY POINTS: • Diagnostic imaging cost to evaluate resectability was similar among the groups • Cost for imaging was rather small compared to the cost of surgery • Significantly more patients in the Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI arm were eligible for surgery • Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI is recommended for evaluating hepatic resectability in patients with CRCLM.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsContrast MediaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPAContrast agentsCostEconomic evaluationLiver imagingMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID26905871
PMCPMC5052297
OpenAlexW2284763546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.