Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36212449›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Early economic modeling of magnetic resonance image-guided high intensity focused ultrasound compared to radiotherapy for pain palliation of bone metastases.

Julia Simões Corrêa Galendi, Sin Yuin Yeo, Holger Grüll, Grischa Bratke, Dennis Akuamoa-Boateng, Christian Baues, Clemens Bos, Helena M Verkooijen, Arim Shukri, Stephanie Stock and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cost-utility of focused ultrasound compared to radiotherapy for Dutch patients with uncomplicated non-spinal bone metastases.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Focused Ultrasound for Sarcomas: A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia Simões Corrêa GalendiInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Sin Yuin YeoInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Holger GrüllInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Grischa BratkeInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Dennis Akuamoa-BoatengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife and Radiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christian BauesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife and Radiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Clemens BosDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Arim ShukriInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stephanie StockInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Dirk MüllerInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Magnetic Resonance Image-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is a non-invasive treatment option for palliative patients with painful bone metastases. Early evidence suggests that MR-HIFU is associated with similar overall treatment response, but more rapid pain palliation compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). This modelling study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of MR-HIFU as an alternative treatment option for painful bone metastases from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). Materials and methods: A microsimulation model with lifelong time horizon and one-month cycle length was developed. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), strategy A (MR-HIFU as first-line treatment or as retreatment option in case of persistent pain or only partial pain relief after EBRT) was compared to strategy B (EBRT alone) for patients with bone metastases due to breast, prostate, or lung cancer. Input parameters used for the model were extracted from the literature. Results were expressed as EUR per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR per pain response (i.e., months spent with complete or partial pain response). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of results, and a value of information analysis was conducted. Results: Compared to strategy B, strategy A resulted in additional costs (EUR 399) and benefits (0.02 QALYs and 0.95 months with pain response). In the base case, the resulting ICERs (strategy A vs. strategy B) are EUR 19,845/QALY and EUR 421 per pain response. Offering all patients MR-HIFU as first-line treatment would increase the ICER by 50% (31,048 EUR/QALY). PSA showed that at a (hypothetical) willingness to pay of EUR 20,000/QALY, the probability of MR-HIFU being cost-effective was 52%. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for the benefit population in Germany is approximately EUR 190 Mio. Conclusion: Although there is considerable uncertainty, the results demonstrate that introducing MR-HIFU as a treatment alternative for painful bone metastases might be cost-effective for the German SHI. The high EVPI indicate that further studies to reduce uncertainty would be worthwhile.

Indexed as

bone metastasescancer paincost-effectivenesshigh-intensity focused ultrasoundMR-HIFUpain palliationradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID36212449
PMCPMC9537476
OpenAlexW4297005138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.