Cost-effectiveness of saline-assisted hysterosonography and office hysteroscopy in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding: a decision analysis.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to evaluate whether hysterosonography (HSG) is a more cost-effective initial diagnostic examination than office hysteroscopy in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A computer model simulated the diagnosis and treatment of PMB in otherwise healthy women. The hypothetical patient who had one episode of PMB precipitating a clinic visit would undergo either HSG or office hysteroscopy as the initial examination. Algorithms were designed such that a finite number of false-negative and false-positive findings would be expected, and clinical decision making would rely on the reported results. Performance characteristics for diagnostic tests and other clinical probabilities were taken from the literature. Costs were based on actual 1997 Medicare reimbursements. The primary clinical outcome considered was the correct diagnosis of any anatomic abnormality that was amenable to definitive treatment. The primary cost outcome considered was the cost per abnormality detected. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the effect of varying performance characteristics for diagnostic techniques. RESULTS: HSG and office hysteroscopy correctly depicted 68.1 and 67.6 anatomic abnormalities per 100 patients, respectively. The average cost per abnormality detected was $7,978 with HSG and $8,400 with office hysteroscopy. CONCLUSION: HSG depicted more abnormalities at a lower cost per abnormality, which suggests that it should be the preferred initial diagnostic examination in the setting of PMB.

Evaluation of the woman with postmenopausal bleeding: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound-Sponsored Consensus Conference statement.

OBJECTIVES: A panel of 14 physicians practicing medicine in the United States with expertise in radiology, obstetrics and gynecology, gynecologic oncology, hysteroscopy, epidemiology, and pathology was convened by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound to discuss the role of sonography in women with postmenopausal bleeding. Broad objectives of this conference were (1) to advance understanding of the utility of different diagnostic techniques for evaluating the endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding; (2) to formulate useful and practical guidelines for evaluation of women with postmenopausal bleeding, specifically as it relates to the use of sonography; and (3) to offer suggestions for future research projects. SETTING: October 24 and 25, 2000, Washington, DC, preceding the annual Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Advances in Sonography conference. PROCEDURE: Specific questions to the panel included the following: (1) What are the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using transvaginal sonography versus office (nondirected) endometrial biopsy as the initial examination for a woman with postmenopausal bleeding? (2) What are the sonographic standards for evaluating a woman with postmenopausal bleeding? (3) What are the abnormal sonographic findings in a woman with postmenopausal bleeding? (4) When should saline infusion sonohysterography or hysteroscopy be used in the evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding? (5) Should the diagnostic approach be modified for patients taking hormone replacement medications, tamoxifen, or other selective estrogen receptor modulators? CONCLUSIONS: Consensus recommendations were used to create an algorithm for evaluating women with postmenopausal bleeding. All panelists agreed that because postmenopausal bleeding is the most common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer, when postmenopausal bleeding occurs, clinical evaluation is indicated. The panelists also agreed that either transvaginal sonography or endometrial biopsy could be used safely and effectively as the first diagnostic step. Whether sonography or endometrial biopsy is used initially depends on the physician's assessment of patient risk, the nature of the physician's practice, the availability of high-quality sonography, and patient preference. Similar sensitivities for detecting endometrial carcinoma are reported for transvaginal sonography when an endometrial thickness of greater than 5 mm is considered abnormal and for endometrial biopsy when "sufficient" tissue is obtained. Currently, with respect to mortality, morbidity, and quality-of-life end points, there are insufficient data to comment as to which approach is more effective. The conference concluded by identifying several important unanswered questions and suggestions that could be addressed by future research projects.

Analysis of three-dimensional ultrasound Doppler for the detection of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relative effectiveness of Doppler ultrasound quantitative measures in discriminating prostate cancer from normal prostate tissue. The true locations of prostate cancer within these prostates were determined by histologic examination after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Three-dimensional Doppler ultrasound data were acquired from 39 men before radical prostatectomy. The removed prostates were sectioned and all cancerous regions in each prostate were identified on whole-mount hematoxylin-eosin-stained slides. The ultrasound and histologic data were then spatially registered. Biopsy results were simulated on a grid of potential sites within each prostate. Along each simulated biopsy site, the amount of cancer was computed from the hematoxylin-eosin-identified cancerous regions and the peak speed-weighted pixel density (SWD) was compared. RESULTS: By selecting the biopsy sites with higher associated SWDs within each sextant, the probability of having at least one positive biopsy within a prostate increased from 75% if the SWD was ignored to 85% if only the top 15% of potential biopsy sites in each sextant were selected. This trend was seen within each sextant individually as well. CONCLUSIONS: Doppler ultrasound provides discriminatory information for prostate cancer using the SWD. Translating this into a practical strategy that might improve the yield of prostate biopsy remains under development. The results of our study indicate that biopsying regions of high Doppler color could potentially increase the cancer yield to a small degree and improve the accuracy of the biopsy results. These results also objectively verify previous visual studies suggesting a modest improvement with the use of color Doppler.

Use of a decision-analytic model to support the use of a new oral US contrast agent in patients with abdominal pain.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to compare the cost and diagnostic abilities of ultrasound (US) performed with and without the use of an oral contrast material recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interactive decision-analytic model was constructed to compare US performed with and without contrast material (SonoRx; Bracco Diagnostics) for the evaluation of patients with abdominal pain who were suspected of having pancreatic disease. The model considered all resources that might be used to evaluate a patient suspected of having pancreatic disease (eg, US, computed tomography [CT], endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy, and open biopsy). The literature and an expert panel were the clinical data sources. Cost estimates were based on Medicare and non-Medicare reimbursements. The primary cost-effectiveness measure was the cost to achieve a diagnosis. RESULTS: SonoRx-enhanced US was less expensive than unenhanced US ($714 vs $808, respectively, with Medicare costs; $1,612 vs $1,878, respectively, with non-Medicare costs) and as effective (0.785 vs 0.782, respectively). SonoRx-enhanced US was more cost-effective than unenhanced US ($909 vs $1,034, respectively, with Medicare costs; $2,052 vs $2,401, respectively, with non-Medicare costs). This relationship was maintained throughout extensive sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: SonoRx-enhanced US is more cost-effective than unenhanced US, primarily because it avoids the need for CT. CT may be avoided owing to the higher probability of obtaining optimal US scans with oral contrast material.