Expanding the role of radiographers in reporting suspected lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model
Creators
- 1. City University (United Kingdom)
- 2. King's Health Economics, King's College London (United Kingdom)
- 3. School of Allied Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University (United Kingdom)
- 4. Radiology Department, Homerton University Hospital (United Kingdom)
- 5. The Society and College of Radiographers, London (United Kingdom)
Description
Introduction: To assess whether an enhanced role for radiographers in reporting lung cancer chest radiographs is cost-effective. Methods: Costs and outcomes of chest radiograph reporting by reporting radiographer or by a radiologist were compared using a decision tree model. The model followed patients from an initial chest radiographs for suspected lung cancer to the provision of cancer care in positive cases. Sensitivity and specificity of reporting for radiographers and radiologists were derived from a recent trial. Treatment costs and quality adjusted life expectancy were estimated over five years for those diagnosed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of inference to parameter uncertainty. Results: For 1000 simulated patients, radiographer reporting decreased detection costs by £8500 and detected 10.3 more cases at initial presentation. After including treatment costs and outcomes, radiographer reporting remained cheaper than radiologist reporting and resulted in 1.4 additional QALYs per 1000 screened patients. Probabilistic analysis indicated a 98% likelihood that radiographer reporting is cheaper and more effective than radiologist reporting after inclusion of treatment costs and outcomes. Conclusion: Radiographer reporting is a cost-effective alternative to radiologist reporting in lung cancer diagnosis. Further work is needed to support the adoption of radiographer's reporting pathway in diagnosis of lung cancer suspected patients. - Highlights: • Reporting of chest radiographs for lung cancer by trained reporting radiographers is cost-effective. • Findings are robust to uncertainty in estimates of the specificity and sensitivity of radiographer and radiologist reporting. • Radiographer reporting remains cost-effective for reporting times up to fivefold more than reporting times for radiologists. • Reporting radiographers can increase diagnostic capacity within the lung cancer pathway.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2017.07.011Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.radi.2017.07.011;
- PII
- S1078-8174(17)30126-8;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Radiography (London 1995)
- Journal Volume
- 23
- Journal Issue
- 4
- Journal Page Range
- p. 273-278
- ISSN
- 1078-8174
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 49049799
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- CHEST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION TREE ANALYSIS; LUNGS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PROBABILISTIC ESTIMATION; RADIOLOGICAL PERSONNEL; RADIOSENSITIVITY; SIMULATION
- Descriptors DEC
- BODY; CALCULATION METHODS; DISEASES; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; ORGANS; PERSONNEL; RESPIRATORY SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.