EClinicalMedicine (Sep 2024)

Cost-effectiveness of a precision hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance strategy in patients with cirrhosisResearch in context

  • Szu-Yu Zoe Kao,
  • Kinpritma Sangha,
  • Naoto Fujiwara,
  • Yujin Hoshida,
  • Neehar D. Parikh,
  • Amit G. Singal

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 75
p. 102755

Abstract

Read online

Summary: Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is currently performed using a one-size-fits-all strategy with ultrasound plus AFP (US + AFP). There is increasing interest in risk-stratified and precision surveillance strategies incorporating individual risk and variance in surveillance test performance; however, the cost-effectiveness of these approaches has not been evaluated. Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate four surveillance strategies (no surveillance, universal US + AFP surveillance, risk-stratified surveillance, and precision surveillance) in a simulated cohort of 50-year-old patients with compensated cirrhosis. The most cost-effective strategy was that with the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY gained. Model inputs were based on literature review, and costs were derived from the Medicare fee schedule. Findings: The precision surveillance strategy demonstrated variation in recommended surveillance test based on HCC risk category and patient factors. US + AFP, risk-stratified, and precision surveillance detected more HCC cases per 100,000 population than no surveillance, with a higher proportion of early-stage cases for precision surveillance (67.6%) than risk-stratified (63.8%), universal ultrasound (63.2%), and no surveillance (38.0%). Compared to no surveillance, precision surveillance was most cost-effective, with an ICER of $104,614/QALY gained, whereas US + AFP and risk-stratified surveillance were both dominated. Compared to US + AFP, risk-stratified surveillance was cost saving and dominated US + AFP, whereas precision surveillance was cost-effective, with an ICER of $98,103/QALY gained. Results were sensitive to survival with early-stage HCC, cost of early-stage HCC treatment, and surveillance utilization. Precision surveillance remained the most cost-effective when WTP thresholds exceeded $110,000/QALY gained. Interpretation: A precision surveillance strategy is the most cost-effective method for HCC surveillance. This approach could maximize surveillance benefits in high-risk patients, while minimizing surveillance harms in low-risk individuals. Funding: National Cancer Institute (U01 CA230694, R01 CA222900, R01 CA212008, and U24ca086368) and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) (RP200554).

Keywords