Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C.

Lin OS, Keeffe EB, Sanders GD, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2004 Jun 1; 19(11):1159-72.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients using abdominal ultrasonography and alpha-foetoprotein levels is widely practiced. AIM: To evaluate its cost-effectiveness using a Markov decision model. METHODS: Several screening strategies with abdominal ultrasonography or computerized tomography and serum alpha-foetoprotein at 6-12-month intervals in 40-year-old patients with chronic hepatitis C and compensated cirrhosis were simulated from a societal perspective, resulting in discounted costs per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Extensive sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: For the least efficacious strategy, annual alpha-foetoprotein/ultrasonography, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (vs. no screening) was $23 043/quality-adjusted life-year. Biannual alpha-foetoprotein/annual ultrasonography, the most commonly used strategy in the United States, was more efficacious, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $33 083/quality-adjusted life-year vs. annual alpha-foetoprotein/ultrasonography. The most efficacious strategy, biannual alpha-foetoprotein/ultrasonography, resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $73 789/quality-adjusted life-year vs. biannual alpha-foetoprotein/annual ultrasonography. Biannual alpha-foetoprotein/annual computerized tomography screening resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $51 750/quality-adjusted life-year vs. biannual alpha-foetoprotein/annual ultrasonography screening. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma is as cost-effective as other accepted screening protocols. Of the strategies evaluated, biannual alpha-foetoprotein/annual ultrasonography gives the most quality-adjusted life-year gain while still maintaining a cost-effectiveness ratio < $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year. Biannual alpha-foetoprotein/annual computerized tomography screening may be cost-effective.