Diagnostic Ascertainment of Suspicious Pancreatic Mass: A Threshold Analysis

Amnon Sonnenberg, Sarah A. Rodriguez, Douglas Orrick Faigel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background & Aims: It is frequently difficult to differentiate between a benign and malignant pancreatic mass. The aim of this study was to assess the parameters that affect the decision to perform surgery on a suspicious pancreatic head lesion. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis, using decision tree and threshold analysis, accumulates costs and quality-adjusted life years in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management. The threshold value is defined as the diagnostic probability for pancreatic cancer when the cost-benefit relationships of pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management are equal. Results: For a localized pancreatic head lesion, the threshold probability of cancer is 43%. Any higher probability of pancreatic cancer makes pancreaticoduodenectomy the preferred treatment option. Within a range of $20,000 to $80,000 spent on surgery, the threshold in favor of Whipple procedure remains relatively low at 40% to 65%. A reduced quality of life after surgery weighs against surgery and raises its threshold. Varying quality of life between 100% and 80% changes the threshold between 31% and 67%. The threshold also is increased in younger patients because of the potentially more dire consequences of unnecessary surgery in instances of long life expectancy. Conclusions: Even if diagnostic certainty cannot be achieved, it frequently is beneficial to perform surgery despite the risk of subjecting the occasional patient with benign pancreatic head lesion to an unnecessary pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1162-1166
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume6
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Quality of Life
Unnecessary Procedures
Decision Trees
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Life Expectancy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Neoplasms
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Hepatology

Cite this

Diagnostic Ascertainment of Suspicious Pancreatic Mass : A Threshold Analysis. / Sonnenberg, Amnon; Rodriguez, Sarah A.; Faigel, Douglas Orrick.

In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol. 6, No. 10, 10.2008, p. 1162-1166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0ac7f59c04e14ce4af22784182db4f50,
title = "Diagnostic Ascertainment of Suspicious Pancreatic Mass: A Threshold Analysis",
abstract = "Background & Aims: It is frequently difficult to differentiate between a benign and malignant pancreatic mass. The aim of this study was to assess the parameters that affect the decision to perform surgery on a suspicious pancreatic head lesion. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis, using decision tree and threshold analysis, accumulates costs and quality-adjusted life years in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management. The threshold value is defined as the diagnostic probability for pancreatic cancer when the cost-benefit relationships of pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management are equal. Results: For a localized pancreatic head lesion, the threshold probability of cancer is 43{\%}. Any higher probability of pancreatic cancer makes pancreaticoduodenectomy the preferred treatment option. Within a range of $20,000 to $80,000 spent on surgery, the threshold in favor of Whipple procedure remains relatively low at 40{\%} to 65{\%}. A reduced quality of life after surgery weighs against surgery and raises its threshold. Varying quality of life between 100{\%} and 80{\%} changes the threshold between 31{\%} and 67{\%}. The threshold also is increased in younger patients because of the potentially more dire consequences of unnecessary surgery in instances of long life expectancy. Conclusions: Even if diagnostic certainty cannot be achieved, it frequently is beneficial to perform surgery despite the risk of subjecting the occasional patient with benign pancreatic head lesion to an unnecessary pancreaticoduodenectomy.",
author = "Amnon Sonnenberg and Rodriguez, {Sarah A.} and Faigel, {Douglas Orrick}",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.cgh.2008.05.015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "1162--1166",
journal = "Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology",
issn = "1542-3565",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic Ascertainment of Suspicious Pancreatic Mass

T2 - A Threshold Analysis

AU - Sonnenberg, Amnon

AU - Rodriguez, Sarah A.

AU - Faigel, Douglas Orrick

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Background & Aims: It is frequently difficult to differentiate between a benign and malignant pancreatic mass. The aim of this study was to assess the parameters that affect the decision to perform surgery on a suspicious pancreatic head lesion. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis, using decision tree and threshold analysis, accumulates costs and quality-adjusted life years in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management. The threshold value is defined as the diagnostic probability for pancreatic cancer when the cost-benefit relationships of pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management are equal. Results: For a localized pancreatic head lesion, the threshold probability of cancer is 43%. Any higher probability of pancreatic cancer makes pancreaticoduodenectomy the preferred treatment option. Within a range of $20,000 to $80,000 spent on surgery, the threshold in favor of Whipple procedure remains relatively low at 40% to 65%. A reduced quality of life after surgery weighs against surgery and raises its threshold. Varying quality of life between 100% and 80% changes the threshold between 31% and 67%. The threshold also is increased in younger patients because of the potentially more dire consequences of unnecessary surgery in instances of long life expectancy. Conclusions: Even if diagnostic certainty cannot be achieved, it frequently is beneficial to perform surgery despite the risk of subjecting the occasional patient with benign pancreatic head lesion to an unnecessary pancreaticoduodenectomy.

AB - Background & Aims: It is frequently difficult to differentiate between a benign and malignant pancreatic mass. The aim of this study was to assess the parameters that affect the decision to perform surgery on a suspicious pancreatic head lesion. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis, using decision tree and threshold analysis, accumulates costs and quality-adjusted life years in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management. The threshold value is defined as the diagnostic probability for pancreatic cancer when the cost-benefit relationships of pancreaticoduodenectomy or expectant management are equal. Results: For a localized pancreatic head lesion, the threshold probability of cancer is 43%. Any higher probability of pancreatic cancer makes pancreaticoduodenectomy the preferred treatment option. Within a range of $20,000 to $80,000 spent on surgery, the threshold in favor of Whipple procedure remains relatively low at 40% to 65%. A reduced quality of life after surgery weighs against surgery and raises its threshold. Varying quality of life between 100% and 80% changes the threshold between 31% and 67%. The threshold also is increased in younger patients because of the potentially more dire consequences of unnecessary surgery in instances of long life expectancy. Conclusions: Even if diagnostic certainty cannot be achieved, it frequently is beneficial to perform surgery despite the risk of subjecting the occasional patient with benign pancreatic head lesion to an unnecessary pancreaticoduodenectomy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=52949093536&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=52949093536&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.05.015

DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.05.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 18928941

AN - SCOPUS:52949093536

VL - 6

SP - 1162

EP - 1166

JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

SN - 1542-3565

IS - 10

ER -