Auditory brainstem response and magnetic resonance imaging for acoustic neuromas: Costs by prevalence

Martin S. Robinette, Christopher D. Bauch, Wayne O. Olsen, Michael J Cevette

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare hypothetical costs for identification of acoustic tumors when using magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium Gd 64 (MRI-64Gd) as a sole diagnostic test and when using auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing followed by MRI-64Gd (ABR+MRI-64Gd) for those with positive ABR findings. Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of the medical records of 75 patients having surgically confirmed acoustic neuromas to categorize them into 3 subgroups relative to their risk of having a cerebellopontine angle tumor based on history, symptoms, and routine pure-tone and speech audiometric findings. Hypothetical costs associated with identification of patients with acoustic neuroma in each subgroup were calculated for MRI-64Gd alone and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Auditory brainstem response sensitivity and specificity data for the 75 patients with acoustic neuroma and 75 patients without a tumor matched for hearing loss were applied to the hypothetical subgroups. Tumor size was considered also. Setting: Tertiary care center. Main Outcome Measure: Comparison of costs for MRI-64Gd and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Results: Fouteen patients with acoustic neuroma were assigned to the high-risk category (30% probability); 45 were in the intermediate-risk category (5% probability); and 16 were in the low-risk category (1% probability). Auditory brainstem response testing correctly identified 100% of the large tumors (>2.0 cm), 93% of the medium-sized tumors (1.1-2.0 cm), and 82% of the small tumors (< 1.0 cm). The hypothetical costs for identifying 14 patients with acoustic neuroma among 47 patients in the high-risk category using MRI-64Gd would be $70500; ABR+MRI-64Gd costs for the 13 patients identified by ABR would be $39 600. Hypothetically 900 patients would be tested to identify the 45 acoustic neuromas in the intermediate-risk category. Magnetic resonance imaging with 64Gd screening would reach $1.35 million for this sample. Auditory brainstem response testing and MRI-64Gd would be $486000, but 4 acoustic neuromas would be missed. For the low-risk subgroup MRI-64Gd screening of 1600 patients to identify 16 acoustic neuromas would total $2.4 million; ABR+MRI-64Gd to identify 15 of them would be $787500. In this sample of 75 acoustic neuromas, large tumors were more prevalent in the low-risk subgroup than in the high- or intermediate-risk subgroups. Conclusions: Decisions regarding assessment of patients at risk for acoustic neuromas must be made on a case-by-case basis. Use of ABR+MRI-64Gd allows considerable savings when patients are in the intermediate- or low-risk subgroups. New MRI and ABR testing techniques offer promise for reducing costs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)963-966
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume126
Issue number8
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Acoustic Neuroma
Brain Stem Auditory Evoked Potentials
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Costs and Cost Analysis
Neoplasms
Gadolinium
Hearing Loss
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Tertiary Care Centers
Medical Records

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Auditory brainstem response and magnetic resonance imaging for acoustic neuromas : Costs by prevalence. / Robinette, Martin S.; Bauch, Christopher D.; Olsen, Wayne O.; Cevette, Michael J.

In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 126, No. 8, 2000, p. 963-966.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{620c84fa7ecd4fd9b0b02db6929e2076,
title = "Auditory brainstem response and magnetic resonance imaging for acoustic neuromas: Costs by prevalence",
abstract = "Objective: To compare hypothetical costs for identification of acoustic tumors when using magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium Gd 64 (MRI-64Gd) as a sole diagnostic test and when using auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing followed by MRI-64Gd (ABR+MRI-64Gd) for those with positive ABR findings. Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of the medical records of 75 patients having surgically confirmed acoustic neuromas to categorize them into 3 subgroups relative to their risk of having a cerebellopontine angle tumor based on history, symptoms, and routine pure-tone and speech audiometric findings. Hypothetical costs associated with identification of patients with acoustic neuroma in each subgroup were calculated for MRI-64Gd alone and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Auditory brainstem response sensitivity and specificity data for the 75 patients with acoustic neuroma and 75 patients without a tumor matched for hearing loss were applied to the hypothetical subgroups. Tumor size was considered also. Setting: Tertiary care center. Main Outcome Measure: Comparison of costs for MRI-64Gd and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Results: Fouteen patients with acoustic neuroma were assigned to the high-risk category (30{\%} probability); 45 were in the intermediate-risk category (5{\%} probability); and 16 were in the low-risk category (1{\%} probability). Auditory brainstem response testing correctly identified 100{\%} of the large tumors (>2.0 cm), 93{\%} of the medium-sized tumors (1.1-2.0 cm), and 82{\%} of the small tumors (< 1.0 cm). The hypothetical costs for identifying 14 patients with acoustic neuroma among 47 patients in the high-risk category using MRI-64Gd would be $70500; ABR+MRI-64Gd costs for the 13 patients identified by ABR would be $39 600. Hypothetically 900 patients would be tested to identify the 45 acoustic neuromas in the intermediate-risk category. Magnetic resonance imaging with 64Gd screening would reach $1.35 million for this sample. Auditory brainstem response testing and MRI-64Gd would be $486000, but 4 acoustic neuromas would be missed. For the low-risk subgroup MRI-64Gd screening of 1600 patients to identify 16 acoustic neuromas would total $2.4 million; ABR+MRI-64Gd to identify 15 of them would be $787500. In this sample of 75 acoustic neuromas, large tumors were more prevalent in the low-risk subgroup than in the high- or intermediate-risk subgroups. Conclusions: Decisions regarding assessment of patients at risk for acoustic neuromas must be made on a case-by-case basis. Use of ABR+MRI-64Gd allows considerable savings when patients are in the intermediate- or low-risk subgroups. New MRI and ABR testing techniques offer promise for reducing costs.",
author = "Robinette, {Martin S.} and Bauch, {Christopher D.} and Olsen, {Wayne O.} and Cevette, {Michael J}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "963--966",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Auditory brainstem response and magnetic resonance imaging for acoustic neuromas

T2 - Costs by prevalence

AU - Robinette, Martin S.

AU - Bauch, Christopher D.

AU - Olsen, Wayne O.

AU - Cevette, Michael J

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Objective: To compare hypothetical costs for identification of acoustic tumors when using magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium Gd 64 (MRI-64Gd) as a sole diagnostic test and when using auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing followed by MRI-64Gd (ABR+MRI-64Gd) for those with positive ABR findings. Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of the medical records of 75 patients having surgically confirmed acoustic neuromas to categorize them into 3 subgroups relative to their risk of having a cerebellopontine angle tumor based on history, symptoms, and routine pure-tone and speech audiometric findings. Hypothetical costs associated with identification of patients with acoustic neuroma in each subgroup were calculated for MRI-64Gd alone and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Auditory brainstem response sensitivity and specificity data for the 75 patients with acoustic neuroma and 75 patients without a tumor matched for hearing loss were applied to the hypothetical subgroups. Tumor size was considered also. Setting: Tertiary care center. Main Outcome Measure: Comparison of costs for MRI-64Gd and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Results: Fouteen patients with acoustic neuroma were assigned to the high-risk category (30% probability); 45 were in the intermediate-risk category (5% probability); and 16 were in the low-risk category (1% probability). Auditory brainstem response testing correctly identified 100% of the large tumors (>2.0 cm), 93% of the medium-sized tumors (1.1-2.0 cm), and 82% of the small tumors (< 1.0 cm). The hypothetical costs for identifying 14 patients with acoustic neuroma among 47 patients in the high-risk category using MRI-64Gd would be $70500; ABR+MRI-64Gd costs for the 13 patients identified by ABR would be $39 600. Hypothetically 900 patients would be tested to identify the 45 acoustic neuromas in the intermediate-risk category. Magnetic resonance imaging with 64Gd screening would reach $1.35 million for this sample. Auditory brainstem response testing and MRI-64Gd would be $486000, but 4 acoustic neuromas would be missed. For the low-risk subgroup MRI-64Gd screening of 1600 patients to identify 16 acoustic neuromas would total $2.4 million; ABR+MRI-64Gd to identify 15 of them would be $787500. In this sample of 75 acoustic neuromas, large tumors were more prevalent in the low-risk subgroup than in the high- or intermediate-risk subgroups. Conclusions: Decisions regarding assessment of patients at risk for acoustic neuromas must be made on a case-by-case basis. Use of ABR+MRI-64Gd allows considerable savings when patients are in the intermediate- or low-risk subgroups. New MRI and ABR testing techniques offer promise for reducing costs.

AB - Objective: To compare hypothetical costs for identification of acoustic tumors when using magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium Gd 64 (MRI-64Gd) as a sole diagnostic test and when using auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing followed by MRI-64Gd (ABR+MRI-64Gd) for those with positive ABR findings. Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of the medical records of 75 patients having surgically confirmed acoustic neuromas to categorize them into 3 subgroups relative to their risk of having a cerebellopontine angle tumor based on history, symptoms, and routine pure-tone and speech audiometric findings. Hypothetical costs associated with identification of patients with acoustic neuroma in each subgroup were calculated for MRI-64Gd alone and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Auditory brainstem response sensitivity and specificity data for the 75 patients with acoustic neuroma and 75 patients without a tumor matched for hearing loss were applied to the hypothetical subgroups. Tumor size was considered also. Setting: Tertiary care center. Main Outcome Measure: Comparison of costs for MRI-64Gd and ABR+MRI-64Gd. Results: Fouteen patients with acoustic neuroma were assigned to the high-risk category (30% probability); 45 were in the intermediate-risk category (5% probability); and 16 were in the low-risk category (1% probability). Auditory brainstem response testing correctly identified 100% of the large tumors (>2.0 cm), 93% of the medium-sized tumors (1.1-2.0 cm), and 82% of the small tumors (< 1.0 cm). The hypothetical costs for identifying 14 patients with acoustic neuroma among 47 patients in the high-risk category using MRI-64Gd would be $70500; ABR+MRI-64Gd costs for the 13 patients identified by ABR would be $39 600. Hypothetically 900 patients would be tested to identify the 45 acoustic neuromas in the intermediate-risk category. Magnetic resonance imaging with 64Gd screening would reach $1.35 million for this sample. Auditory brainstem response testing and MRI-64Gd would be $486000, but 4 acoustic neuromas would be missed. For the low-risk subgroup MRI-64Gd screening of 1600 patients to identify 16 acoustic neuromas would total $2.4 million; ABR+MRI-64Gd to identify 15 of them would be $787500. In this sample of 75 acoustic neuromas, large tumors were more prevalent in the low-risk subgroup than in the high- or intermediate-risk subgroups. Conclusions: Decisions regarding assessment of patients at risk for acoustic neuromas must be made on a case-by-case basis. Use of ABR+MRI-64Gd allows considerable savings when patients are in the intermediate- or low-risk subgroups. New MRI and ABR testing techniques offer promise for reducing costs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033836074&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033836074&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10922228

AN - SCOPUS:0033836074

VL - 126

SP - 963

EP - 966

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 8

ER -