Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 9 , Pages 1090-1095 , September 2010

Economic Evaluation in Radiology: Reviewing the Literature and Examples in Oncology

Received 8 October 2009 ,Accepted 25 May 2010.

References 

  1. Sullivan SD, Watkins J, Sweet B, et al. Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12(S2):S39–S44
  2. Washington State Health Care Authority. Health technology assessment program. Available at http://www.hta.hca.wa.gov/. Accessed October 7, 2009.
  3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Effective health care home. Available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm. Accessed October 7, 2009.
  4. National Institute for Health Research. Health technology assessment programme. Available at http://www.ncchta.org/. Accessed October 7, 2009.
  5. Kaiser Family Foundation. Trends in health care costs and spending. Publication # 7692–02. Available at http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2009.
  6. McKinsey Global Institute. Accounting for the cost of US health care: a new look at why Americans spend more. McKinsey & Company. November 2008. Available at http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/US_healthcare/pdf/US_healthcare_Chapter1.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2010.
  7. Prologue. The imaging boom. Health Affairs. 2008;27:1466
  8. Fuchs V. Reforming US health care. JAMA. 2009;301:963–964
  9. Abelson R. Following the money in the health care debate. NY Times. June 14, 2009;
  10. Miller ME. MedPAC recommendations onimaging services. Testimony statement to Subcommittee on Health, Committee on ways and Means, US House of Representatives, March 17, 2005.
  11. Levin DC, Rao VM. Turf wars in radiology: updated evidence on the relationship between self-referral and the overutilization of imaging. JACR. 2008;5:806–810
  12. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: issues and options for an expanded federal role. December 2007.
  13. Comparative effectiveness research funding. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/. Accessed October 7, 2009.
  14. Institute of Medicine, Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Report Brief June 2009. Available at http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/63608/71025.aspx. Accessed October 6, 2009.
  15. Pandharipande PV, Gazelle GS. Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology. Radiology. 2009;253:600–605
  16. Yabroff KR, Warren JL, Schrag D, et al. Comparison of approaches for estimating incidence costs of care for colorectal cancer patients. Med Care. 2009;47(7 Suppl. 1):S56–S63
  17. Beinfeld MT, Gazelle GS. Diagnostic imaging costs: are they driving up the costs of hospital care?. Radiology. 2005;235:934–939
  18. Phelps CE. Health 3conomics. 3rd ed.. New York: Addison Wesley; 2003;
  19. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practices for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices—modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17
  20. Williams TR. A geologic survey of the Medicare RBRVS system. JACR. 2004;1:192–198
  21. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996;
  22. Graham MM. Cost-effectiveness of medical imaging. Lancet Oncol. Aug 2009;10:744–745
  23. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1998;
  24. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modeling for health economic evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008;
  25. Dix Smith M, Drummond M, Brixner D. Moving the QALY forward: rationale for change. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S1–S4
  26. Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. Focusing health technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making. 1988;8:279–289
  27. The Evidence-Based Radiology Working Group. Evidence-based radiology: a new approach to the practice of radiology. Radiology. 2001;220:566–575
  28. Hollingworth W, Jarvik JG. Technology assessment in radiology: putting the evidence in evidence-based radiology. Radiology. 2007;244:31–38
  29. Sardanelli F, Hunink MG, Gilbert FJ, et al. Evidence-based radiology: why and how?. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1–15
  30. Singer ME, Applegate KE. Cost-effectiveness analysis in Radiology. Radiology. 2001;219:611–620
  31. Sunshine J, Applegate KE. Technology assessment for Radiologists. Radiology. 2004;230:309–314
  32. Hollingworth W. Radilology costs and outcomes studies: standard practices and emerging methods. Am J Roentgenol AJR. 2005;185:833–839
  33. Gazelle GS, McMahon PM, Siebert U, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the assessment of diagnostic imaging technologies. Radiology. May 2005;235:361–370
  34. Hollingworth W, Spackman E. Emerging methods in economic modeling of imaging costs and outcomes: a short report on discrete event simulation. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:406–410
  35. Blackmore CC, Magid DJ. Methodologic evaluation of the radiology cost-effectiveness literature. Radiology. 1997;203:87–91
  36. Blackmore CC, Smith WJ. Economic analyses of radiological procedures: a methodological evaluation of the medical literature. Eur J Radiol. 1998;27:123–130
  37. Otero HJ, Rybicki FJ, Greenberg D, et al. Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving?. Radiology. 2008;249:917–925
  38. Hunick MGM. Cost-effectiveness analysis: some clarifications. Radiology. 2008;249(3):753–755
  39. Miles KA. Cancer imaging: is it cost-effective?. Cancer Imaging. 2004;4:97–103
  40. Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, et al. Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1759–1767
  41. Klittich WS, Caro JJ. Lung cancer screening: will the controversy extend to its cost-effectiveness?. Am J Respir Med. 2002;1:393–401
  42. Gould MK, Sanders GD, Barnett PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternative management strategies for patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Annals Intern Med. 2003;138:724–735
  43. Lejeune C, Al Zahouri K, Woronoff-Lemsi M-C, et al. Use of a decision analysis model to assess the medicoeconomic implications of FDG PET imaging in diagnosing a solitary pulmonary nodule. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;50:203–214
  44. Gambhir SS, Hoh CK, Phelps ME, et al. Decision tree sensitivity analysis for cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and management of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. J Nuc Med. 1996;37:1428–1436
  45. Sloka JS, Hollett PD, Mathews M. Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography for non-small cell lung carcinoma in Canada. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10:MT73–MT80
  46. Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G, et al. Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in select cancers. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11;iii-iv, xi-267
  47. Park KC, Schwimmer J, Shepherd JE, et al. Decision analysis for the cost-effective management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Surgery. 2001;233:310–319
  48. Zubeldia JM, Bednarczyk EM, Baker JG, et al. The economic impact of 18FDG positron emission tomography in the surgical management of colorectal cancer with hepatic metastases. Cancer Biother Radiopharmaceuticals. 2005;20:450–456
  49. Lejeune C, Bismuth MJ, Conory T, et al. Use of a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET in the management of metachronous liver metastases of colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:2020–2028
  50. McDaniel AM, Champion VL, Kroenke K. A transdisciplinary training program for behavioral oncology and cancer control scientists. Nurs Outlook. 2008;56:123–131

PII: S1076-6332(10)00304-1

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.05.020

Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 9 , Pages 1090-1095 , September 2010

Article Tools