Cited by 66Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Cost-effectiveness of Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance in High-Risk Individuals: An Economic Analysis

Corral, Juan E., Das, Ananya, Bruno, Marco J., Wallace, Michael B.·2019·Pancreas

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to perform an economic analysis to identify the clinical and cost determinants of pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance in high-risk individuals (HRIs). Methods: A Markov model was created to compare the following 3 strategies: no screening, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening. Patients were considered HRIs according to the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening consortium recommendations. Risk for developing PC, survival, and costs data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare databases. Surveillance effectiveness was obtained from a recent meta-analysis. Results: Analysis of a cohort with fivefold relative risk of PC higher than the US population showed that MRI is the most cost-effective strategy. For those with the highest risk (>×20 relative risk), EUS became the dominant strategy. Our model was impacted by cost and imaging performance, but still cost-effective within the range reported in literature. Threshold analysis showed that if MRI increases greater than US $1600, EUS becomes more cost-effective. Once patients reached the age of 76 years, “no screening” was favored. Both surveillance strategies were cost-effective over a wide range of willingness to pay. Conclusions: Abdominal imaging followed by pancreatectomy is cost-effective to prevent PC in HRIs, favoring MRI in moderate risk cases but EUS in those with highest risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mpa.0000000000001268

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using a cost-effectiveness perspective, no screening is favored once patients reach the age of 75 years.

    “There is no agreement on the age to stop screening, but using a cost-effectiveness perspective, no screening is favored once patients reach the age of 75 years.79”
  • Germline mutation carriers have double the risk of neoplastic progression compared with FPC relatives without a mutation.

    “The risk category of the HRI should also be considered: germline mutation carriers have double the risk of neoplastic progression compared with FPC relatives without a mutation.78”
  • Abdominal imaging followed by pancreatectomy of screen-detected lesions is cost-effective as a preventive measure to prevent PDAC.

    “If cost-effectiveness of surveillance of HRI is considered, abdominal imaging followed by pancreatectomy of screen-detected lesions is cost-effective as a preventive measure to prevent PDAC.79”
  • In a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing no screening, EUS, and MRI for screening of HRI, for a cohort with a 5-fold relative risk of PDAC higher than the general US population, MRI was the most cost-effective strategy.

    “In a Markov model–based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing no screening, EUS, and MRI for screening of HRI, analysis of a cohort with a 5-fold relative risk of PDAC higher than the general US population (“moderate risk group” defined above), MRI was the most cost-effective strategy.”
  • If MRI is more costly than US $1600, EUS becomes more cost-effective.

    “Furthermore, the cost of MRI and EUS can vary, and if MRI is more costly than US $1600, EUS becomes more cost-effective.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corral, J. E., Das, A., Bruno, M. J., & Wallace, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
  • St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center (US)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Corral, Juan E.
  • Wallace, Michael B.
Venue
Pancreas
Published
2019-04
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
526-536
ISSN
  • 0885-3177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-4828
OpenAlex
W2933216979
Cited by
66
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pancreas (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
pancreatic cancer, cancer surveillance, high-risk individuals, cost-effectiveness, endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, cancer screening, pancreatic resection, relative risk, threshold analysis, willingness to pay
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Population Surveillance, Risk Factors, Models, Economic, Endosonography, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review