Cost-Effectiveness of Low-Field Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance in Glioma Surgery

• Published in: Frontiers in oncology 2020-11, Vol.10, p.586679-586679
• Main Authors: Garcia-Garcia, Sergio, García-Lorenzo, Borja, Ramos, Pedro Roldan, Gonzalez-Sanchez, Jose Juan, Culebras, Diego, Restovic, Gabriela, Alcover, Estanis, Pons, Imma, Torales, Jorge, Reyes, Luis, Sampietro-Colom, Laura, Enseñat, Joaquim
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: cost-effectiveness; glioma; incremental cost-effective ratio; intraoperative magnetic resonance; Karnofsky performance status; Oncology; technology assessment
• ISSN: 2234-943X; 2234-943X
• DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.586679

Low-field intraoperative magnetic resonance (LF-iMR) has demonstrated a slight increase in the extent of resection of intra-axial tumors while preserving patient`s neurological outcomes. However, whether this improvement is cost-effective or not is still matter of controversy. In this clinical investigation we sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of a LF-iMR in glioma surgery. Patients undergoing LF-iMR guided glioma surgery with gross total resection (GTR) intention were prospectively collected and compared to an historical cohort operated without this technology. Socio-demographic and clinical variables (pre and postoperative KPS; histopathological classification; Extent of resection; postoperative complications; need of re-intervention within the first year and 1-year postoperative survival) were collected and analyzed. Effectiveness variables were assessed in both groups: Postoperative Karnofsky performance status scale (pKPS); overall survival (OS); Progression-free survival (PFS); and a variable accounting for the number of patients with a greater than subtotal resection and same or higher postoperative KPS (R-KPS). All preoperative, procedural and postoperative costs linked to the treatment were considered for the cost-effectiveness analysis (diagnostic procedures, prosthesis, operating time, hospitalization, consumables, LF-iMR device, etc). Deterministic and probabilistic simulations were conducted to evaluate the consistency of our analysis. 50 patients were operated with LF-iMR assistance, while 146 belonged to the control group. GTR rate, pKPS, R-KPS, PFS, and 1-year OS were respectively 13,8% (not significative), 7 points (p < 0.05), 17% (p < 0.05), 38 days (p < 0.05), and 3.7% (not significative) higher in the intervention group. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a mean incremental cost per patient of 789 € in the intervention group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 111 € per additional point of pKPS, 21 € per additional day free of progression, and 46 € per additional percentage point of R-KPS. Glioma patients operated under LF-iMR guidance experience a better functional outcome, higher resection rates, less complications, better PFS rates but similar life expectancy compared to conventional techniques. In terms of efficiency, LF-iMR is very close to be a dominant technology in terms of R-KPS, PFS and pKPS.