Cost-effectiveness analysis: percutaneous microwave ablation vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for small renal masses.

PURPOSE: The majority of newly diagnosed renal tumors are masses < 4 cm in size with treatment options, including active surveillance, partial nephrectomy, and ablative therapies. The cost-effectiveness literature on the management of small renal masses (SRMs) does not account for recent advances in technology and improvements in technical expertise. We aim to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis for percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RA-PN) for the treatment of SRMs. METHODS: We created a decision analytic Markov model depicting management of the SRM incorporating costs, health utilities, and probabilities of complications and recurrence as model inputs using TreeAge. A willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 and a lifetime horizon were used. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Percutaneous MWA was the preferred treatment modality. MWA dominated RA-PN, meaning it resulted in more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lower cost. Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed a negative Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), indicating dominance of MWA. The model revealed MWA had a mean cost of $8,507 and 12.51 QALYs. RA-PN had a mean cost of $21,521 and 12.43 QALYs. Relative preference of MWA was robust to sensitivity analysis of all other variables. Patient starting age and cost of RA-PN had the most dramatic impact on ICER. CONCLUSION: MWA is more cost-effective for the treatment of SRM when compared with RA-PN and accounting for complication and recurrence risk.

Does renal mass biopsy influence multidisciplinary treatment recommendations?

Purpose: To examine how a multidisciplinary team approach incorporating renal mass biopsy (RMB) into decision making changes the management strategy.Methods: A multidisciplinary team comprised of a radiology proceduralist, a pathologist and urologists convened monthly for renal mass conference with a structured presentation of patient demographics, co-mborbidities, tumor pathology, laboratory and radiographic features. Biopsy protocol was standardized to an 18-gauge core needle biopsy using a sheathed apparatus under renal ultrasound guidance. Biopsy diagnostic rate, and concordance with nephrectomy specimens were summarized. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate influence of RMB on management decisions.Results: A total of 83 patients with a ≤4 cm mass were discussed, and 66% of patients underwent RMB. Of those, 87% were diagnostic with 9% of core biopsies showing benign pathology. Active surveillance (AS) was recommended for 34% of patients with biopsy data as compared to 64% of those without biopsy. Ablation was recommended for 38% of the biopsy cohort compared to 7% without biopsy. Partial nephrectomy rates were similar for both cohorts, approximately 17% and 22%, respectively. Our complication rate was 1.5%, with only 1 Clavien-Dindo Grade 2 complication. Histology was concordant in 93% of patients that ultimately underwent partial nephrectomy after biopsy.Conclusions: Over half of our SRM patients underwent a RMB that provided a diagnosis in 85% of cases. RMB aided in shared decision making by providing insight into the biology of renal masses, which helps to guide multidisciplinary management and consideration of nephron sparing options.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Dysphagia.

This review summarizes the relevant literature for the initial imaging of patients with symptoms of dysphagia. For patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia who have an underlying attributable cause, a modified barium swallow is usually appropriate for initial imaging but for those who have unexplained dysphagia a fluoroscopic biphasic esophagram is usually appropriate. Fluoroscopic biphasic esophagram is usually appropriate for initial imaging in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients who have retrosternal dysphagia. For postoperative patients with dysphagia, fluoroscopic single-contrast esophagram and CT neck and chest with intravenous (IV) contrast are usually appropriate for oropharyngeal or retrosternal dysphagia occurring in the early postoperative period where water-soluble contrast is usually preferred rather than barium sulfate. In the later postoperative period (greater than 1 month), CT neck and chest with IV contrast and fluoroscopic single-contrast esophagram are usually appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Nonlocalized Abdominal Pain.

The range of pathology in adults that can produce abdominal pain is broad and necessitates an imaging approach to evaluate many different organ systems. Although localizing pain prompts directed imaging/management, clinical presentations may vary and result in nonlocalized symptoms. This review focuses on imaging the adult population with nonlocalized abdominal pain, including patients with fever, recent abdominal surgery, or neutropenia. Imaging of the entire abdomen and pelvis to evaluate for infectious or inflammatory processes of the abdominal viscera and solid organs, abdominal and pelvic neoplasms, and screen for ischemic or vascular etiologies is essential for prompt diagnosis and treatment. Often the first-line modality, CT quickly evaluates the abdomen/pelvis, providing for accurate diagnoses and management of patients with abdominal pain. Ultrasound and tailored MRI protocols may be useful as first-line imaging studies, especially in pregnant patients. In the postoperative abdomen, fluoroscopy may help detect anastomotic leaks/abscesses. While often performed, abdominal radiographs may not alter management. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Right Lower Quadrant Pain-Suspected Appendicitis.

Appendicitis remains the most common surgical pathology responsible for right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain presenting to emergency departments in the United States, where the incidence continues to increase. Appropriate imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis has resulted in decreased negative appendectomy rate from as high as 25% to approximately 1% to 3%. Contrast-enhanced CT remains the primary and most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate this patient population. MRI is approaching CT in sensitivity and specificity as this technology becomes more widely available and utilization increases. Unenhanced MRI and ultrasound remain the diagnostic procedures of choice in the pregnant patient. MRI and ultrasound continue to perform best in the hands of experts. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Mesenteric Ischemia.

Mesenteric ischemia is an uncommon condition resulting from decreased blood flow to the small or large bowel in an acute or chronic setting. Acute ischemia is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality; however, it is difficult to diagnose clinically. Therefore, a high degree of suspicion and prompt imaging evaluation are necessary. Chronic mesenteric ischemia is less common and typically caused by atherosclerotic occlusion or severe stenosis of at least two of the main mesenteric vessels. While several imaging examination options are available for the initial evaluation of both acute and chronic mesenteric ischemia, CTA of the abdomen and pelvis is overall the most appropriate choice for both conditions. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Colorectal Cancer Screening.

This review summarizes the relevant literature regarding colorectal screening with imaging. For individuals at average or moderate risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening. After positive results on a fecal occult blood test or immunohistochemical test, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer detection. For individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer (eg, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn colitis), optical colonoscopy is preferred because of its ability to obtain biopsies to detect dysplasia. After incomplete colonoscopy, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average, moderate, or high risk. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality with mortality rates as high as 14%. This document addresses the indications for imaging UGIB that is nonvariceal and unrelated to portal hypertension. The four variants are derived with respect to upper endoscopy. For the first three, it is presumed that upper endoscopy has been performed, with three potential initial outcomes: endoscopy reveals arterial bleeding source, endoscopy confirms UGIB without a clear source, and negative endoscopy. The fourth variant, "postsurgical and traumatic causes of UGIB; endoscopy contraindicated" is considered separately because upper endoscopy is not performed. When endoscopy identifies the presence and location of bleeding but bleeding cannot be controlled endoscopically, catheter-based arteriography with treatment is an appropriate next study. CT angiography (CTA) is comparable with angiography as a diagnostic next step. If endoscopy demonstrates a bleed but the endoscopist cannot identify the bleeding source, angiography or CTA can be typically performed and both are considered appropriate. In the event of an obscure UGIB, angiography and CTA have been shown to be equivalent in identifying the bleeding source; CT enterography may be an alternative to CTA to find an intermittent bleeding source. In the postoperative or traumatic setting when endoscopy is contraindicated, primary angiography, CTA, and CT with intravenous contrast are considered appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pretreatment Staging of Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancers are common tumors in the United States and appropriate imaging is essential to direct appropriate care. Staging and treatment differs between tumors arising in the colon versus the rectum. Local staging for colon cancer is less integral to directing therapy given radical resection is often standard. Surgical options for rectal carcinoma are more varied and rely on accurate assessment of the sphincter, circumferential resection margins, and peritoneal reflection. These important anatomic landmarks are best appreciated on high-resolution imaging with transrectal ultrasound or MRI. When metastatic disease is suspected, imaging modalities that provide a global view of the body, such as CT with contrast or PET/CT may be indicated. Rectal cancer often metastasizes to the liver and so MRI of the liver with and without contrast provides accurate staging for liver metastases. This article focuses on local and distant staging and reviews the appropriateness of different imaging for both variants. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Prospective study of giant paraesophageal hernia repair with 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluating giant paraesophageal hernia (GPEH) repair requires long-term follow-up. GPEH repair can have associated high recurrence rates, yet this incidence depends on how recurrence is defined. Our objective was to prospectively evaluate patients undergoing GPEH repair with 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective GPEH repair between 2011 and 2014 were enrolled prospectively. Postoperatively, patients were evaluated at 1 month and 1 year. Radiographic recurrence was evaluated by barium swallow and defined as a gastroesophageal junction located above the hiatus. Quality of life was evaluated pre- and postoperatively with the use of a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: One-hundred six patients were enrolled. The majority of GPEH repairs were performed laparoscopically (80.2%), and 7.5% were redo repairs. At 1-year follow-up, 63.4% of patients were symptom free, and radiographic recurrence was 32.7%. Recurrence rate was 18.8% with standard definition (>2 cm of stomach above the diaphragm). Quality of life scores at 1 year were significantly better after operative repair, even in patients with radiographic recurrence (7.0 vs 22.5 all patients, 13.0 vs 22.5 with recurrence; P < .001). Patients with small radiographic recurrences have similar satisfaction and symptom severity to patients with >2 cm recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: GPEH repair can be performed with low operative mortality and morbidity. The rate of recurrence at 1 year depends on the definition used. Patient satisfaction and symptom severity are similar between patients with radiographic and greater than 2 cm hernia recurrences. Longer follow-up and critical assessment of our results are needed to understand the true impact of this procedure and better inform perioperative decision making.

Handheld device review of abdominal CT for the evaluation of acute appendicitis.

Advances in handheld computing now allow review of DICOM datasets from remote locations. As the diagnostic ability of this tool is unproven, we evaluated the ability to diagnose acute appendicitis on abdominal CT using a mobile DICOM viewer. This HIPAA compliant study was IRB-approved. Twenty-five abdominal CT studies from patients with RLQ pain were interpreted on a handheld device (iPhone) using a DICOM viewer (OsiriX mobile) by five radiologists. All patients had surgical confirmation of acute appendicitis or follow-up confirming no acute appendicitis. Studies were evaluated for the ability to find the appendix, maximum appendiceal diameter, presence of an appendicolith, periappendiceal stranding and fluid, abscess, and an assessment of the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Results were compared to PACS workstation. Fifteen cases of acute appendicitis were correctly identified on 98% of interpretations, with no false-positives. Eight appendicoliths were correctly identified on 88% of interpretations. Three abscesses were correctly identified by all readers. Handheld device measurement of appendiceal diameter had a mean 8.6% larger than PACS measurements (p = 0.035). Evaluation for acute appendicitis on abdominal CT studies using a portable device DICOM viewer can be performed with good concordance to reads performed on PACS workstations.

Thrombolytic therapy in the setting of arterial line-induced ischemia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of percutaneous transcatheter thrombolysis in the treatment of thrombosis due to radial artery cannulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seven patients (4 women; age range 41-62 years) with symptomatic cannulation-induced thrombosis and failure to improve after systemic anticoagulation underwent 8 catheter-directed thrombolytic infusions at our institution over a 3-year period. Access was either antegrade through the brachial artery or retrograde through the femoral artery. Thrombolytic infusions with urokinase began 2 to 12 days (average 6) after removal of the radial artery catheter. The thrombolytic infusion was successful in 5 of 7 patients based on angiographic flow restoration with <20% residual thrombus and significant clinical improvement in the ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: When systemic anticoagulation has failed, percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolytic infusion appears to be effective in the treatment of most patients with severe ischemic hand symptoms due to thrombosis after radial artery cannulation.