Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Clear Cell Likelihood Score Against Renal Mass Biopsy for Evaluating Small Renal Masses.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of the clear cell likelihood score compared to renal mass biopsy (RMB) alone. METHODS: The clear cell likelihood score, a new grading system based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, has been proposed as a possible alternative to percutaneous RMB for identifying clear cell renal carcinoma in small renal masses and expediting treatment of high-risk patients. A decision analysis model was developed to compare a RMB strategy where all patients undergo biopsy and a clear cell likelihood score strategy where only patients that received an indeterminant score of 3 undergo biopsy. Effectiveness was assigned 1 for correct diagnoses and 0 for incorrect or indeterminant diagnoses. Costs were obtained from institutional fees and Medicare reimbursement rates. Probabilities were derived from literature estimates from radiologists trained in the clear cell likelihood score. RESULTS: In the base case model, the clear cell likelihood score was both more effective (0.77 vs 0.70) and less expensive than RMB ($1629 vs $1966). Sensitivity analysis found that the nondiagnostic rate of RMB and the sensitivity of the clear cell likelihood score had the greatest impact on the model. In threshold analyses, the clear cell likelihood score was the preferred strategy when its sensitivity was greater than 62.7% and when an MRI cost less than $5332. CONCLUSION: The clear cell likelihood score is a more cost-effective option than RMB alone for evaluating small renal masses for clear cell renal carcinoma.

Pilot Study of a Novel Online Comprehensive Pelvic Floor Program for Urinary Incontinence in Women.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Urinary incontinence (UI) is common in women and has a vast impact on quality of life (QOL), financial health, and work disability. Robust evidence demonstrates the efficacy of comprehensive conservative therapy (pelvic floor muscle training [PFMT], and behavioral and dietary modification) in the treatment of UI. However, numerous barriers impede access to this care, including limited specialized therapists, financial barriers, and scheduling obstacles. To address these barriers, we developed a novel comprehensive online pelvic floor program (oPFP). METHODS: We performed a prospective study assessing continence and QOL outcomes in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urge urinary incontinence (UUI), or mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) treated with oPFP between May 2019 and November 2022. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and following completion of the 2-month program using the validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) questionnaires, and 24-h bladder diary. Data were analyzed using linear, Poisson mixed models, or generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight women (2 SUI, 3 UUI, 23 MUI) were enrolled and 19 (2 SUI, 2 UUI, 15 MUI) completed the study. Following oPFP, participants showed significantly improved SUI domain scores (3.04 ± 0.19 vs 1.81 ± 0.23, p < 0.001), UPS reason score (2.52 ± 0.18 vs 2.05 ± 0.14, p = 0.003), IIQ-7 sum scores (5.16 ± 0.88 vs 3.07 ± 0.70, p = 0.038), and daily incontinence episodes (2.96 ± 0.60 vs 1.06 ± 0.29, p < 0.001). Mean patient-reported improvement was 5.4 ± 2.5 (ten-point Likert scale). Of respondents, 89% reported program satisfaction, ease of use, and would recommend the program to others. CONCLUSION: The oPFP results in significant improvements to a variety of UI and QOL measures. This program provides an important UI treatment option and gives women greater access to effective conservative therapy.