↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of response evaluation after chemoradiation in patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer using 18F–FDG-PET-CT and/or diffusion-weighted MRI

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of response evaluation after chemoradiation in patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer using 18F–FDG-PET-CT and/or diffusion-weighted MRI
Published in
BMC Cancer, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3254-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjolein JE Greuter, Charlotte S Schouten, Jonas A Castelijns, Pim de Graaf, Emile FI Comans, Otto S Hoekstra, Remco de Bree, Veerle MH Coupé

Abstract

Considerable variation exists in diagnostic tests used for local response evaluation after chemoradiation in patients with advanced oropharyngeal cancer. The yield of invasive examination under general anesthesia (EUA) with biopsies in all patients is low and it may induce substantial morbidity. We explored four response evaluation strategies to detect local residual disease in terms of diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. We built a decision-analytic model using trial data of forty-six patients and scientific literature. We estimated for four strategies the proportion of correct diagnoses, costs concerning diagnostic instruments and the proportion of unnecessary EUA indications. Besides a reference strategy, i.e. EUA for all patients, we considered three imaging strategies consisting of (18)FDG-PET-CT, diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), or both (18)FDG-PET-CT and DW-MRI followed by EUA after a positive test. The impact of uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses. The EUA strategy led to 96% correct diagnoses. Expected costs were €468 per patient whereas 89% of EUA indications were unnecessary. The DW-MRI strategy was the least costly strategy, but also led to the lowest proportion of correct diagnoses, i.e. 93%. The PET-CT strategy and combined imaging strategy were dominated by the EUA strategy due to respectively a smaller or equal proportion of correct diagnoses, at higher costs. However, the combination of PET-CT and DW-MRI had the highest sensitivity. All imaging strategies considerably reduced (unnecessary) EUA indications and its associated burden compared to the EUA strategy. Because the combined PET-CT and DW-MRI strategy costs only an additional €927 per patient, it is preferred over immediate EUA since it reaches the same diagnostic accuracy in detecting local residual disease while leading to substantially less unnecessary EUA indications. However, if healthcare resources are limited, DW-MRI is the strategy of choice because of lower costs while still providing a large reduction in unnecessary EUA indications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,850,250
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,786
of 8,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,012
of 310,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#34
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,345 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.