Gynecologic oncology · 2026
Pre-operative cross-sectional imaging of chest, abdomen, pelvis is not cost-effective for low-grade endometrial cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beshar Isabel, Khorshid Arian, Somasegar Sahana, Kennedy L'Oréal, Blemur Danielle, Tostrud Lauren, Karam Amer
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Increasing numbers of patients are presenting with metastatic burden of endometrial cancer. Currently, guidelines recommend that pre-operative imaging for surgical planning be guided by patient symptoms, risk assessment, and clinical suspicion for disease. Cross-sectional computerized tomography (CT) imaging is not recommended for low-grade disease due to the low risk of distant spread in this group; however, longitudinal data has demonstrated a marked increase in the utilization of preoperative CT imaging in this patient population over the last decade.
METHODS: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision analytic model was made to compare the utility of pre-operative CT imaging versus standard-of-care transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) in low-risk patients with presumed grade 1-2 endometrioid endometrial cancer. Costs adjusted for 2025 $USD healthcare perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were inputted into the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) nested within a Monte Carlo simulation was used to assess outcomes over 5-years.
RESULTS: The mean cost in the CT imaging arm was marginally increased compared to undergoing care in the TVUS arm: $41,462 (95% CI $41,407-41,517) versus $40,144 (95% CI $40,104-40,184). In addition, CT imaging had nominally lower quality of life (3.92 QALY versus 4.05 QALY). Overall, foregoing CT imaging results in a higher incremental net monetary benefit ($14,716) compared to performing CT imaging.
CONCLUSION: Routine addition of CT imaging for pre-operative evaluation in low-risk endometrial cancer does not represent a value-based use of healthcare resources.
METHODS: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision analytic model was made to compare the utility of pre-operative CT imaging versus standard-of-care transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) in low-risk patients with presumed grade 1-2 endometrioid endometrial cancer. Costs adjusted for 2025 $USD healthcare perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were inputted into the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) nested within a Monte Carlo simulation was used to assess outcomes over 5-years.
RESULTS: The mean cost in the CT imaging arm was marginally increased compared to undergoing care in the TVUS arm: $41,462 (95% CI $41,407-41,517) versus $40,144 (95% CI $40,104-40,184). In addition, CT imaging had nominally lower quality of life (3.92 QALY versus 4.05 QALY). Overall, foregoing CT imaging results in a higher incremental net monetary benefit ($14,716) compared to performing CT imaging.
CONCLUSION: Routine addition of CT imaging for pre-operative evaluation in low-risk endometrial cancer does not represent a value-based use of healthcare resources.