Pharmacoeconomic Study on the Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Gadoxetic Acid in Addition to Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Objective: to evaluate pharmacoeconomic advantages of the application of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with hepatobiliary-specific contrast agent – gadoxetic acid in addition to contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Material and methods. We performed the modeling and obtained the results of the pharmacoeconomic study: effectiveness analysis, cost analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. The cost analysis included only direct medical costs (the cost of contrast-enhanced CT, gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) for MRI, and therapy per a patient with verified HCC diagnosis after diagnostic procedures). The financing was performed from the Compulsary Health Insurance Fund. The calculations were made per 1 patient.

Results. The effectiveness analysis showed that the diagnostic scheme CT + MRI with gadoxetic acid was the most effective complex for the diagnosis of HCC because its application provided 50% of patients with 5-year overall survival (4.8 years), which was significantly higher than in patients who were diagnosed HCC with CT + MRI with extracellular GBCA (2.3 years) or CT (3.7 years). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the diagnostic scheme with gadoxetic acid was dominant because each disability-adjusted life year required fewer costs (14 862 rubles) in comparison with CT + MRI with extracellular GBCA (25 293 rubles) or CT (46 540 rubles). According to the results of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis, the application of the diagnostic complex with gadoxetic acid was characterized by the lowest rate of additional costs per 1 disability-adjusted life year.

Conclusion. The pharmacoeconomic study showed that the application of MRI with a hepatospecific contrasting agent – gadoxetic acid in addition to contrast-enhanced CT was an effective and economically beneficial method of early HCC diagnosis.

1. Coleman WB. Mechanisms of human hepatocarcinogenesis. Curr Mol Med. 2003; 3(6): 573–88. https://doi.org/10.2174/1566524033479546.

2. Lalazar G, Sanford MS. Fibrolamellar carcinoma: recent advances and unresolved questions on the molecular mechanisms. Semin Liver Dis. 2018; 38(1): 51–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1621710.

3. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018; 69(1): 182–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019.

4. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int. 2017; 11(4): 317–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-017-9799-9.

5. Breder VV, Balakhnin PV, Virshke ER, et al. Practical recommendations for drug treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Malignant Tumors. 2021; 10(3s2–1): 450–69. https://doi.org/10.18027/2224-5057-2020-10-3s2-25 (in Russ.).

6. Chagas AL, Kikuchi L, Herman P, et al. Clinical and pathological evaluation of fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma: a single center study of 21 cases. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2015; 70(3): 207–13. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2015(03)10.

7. Jhaveri K, Cleary S, Audet P, et al. Consensus statements from a multidisciplinary expert panel on the utilization and application of a liver-specific MRI contrast agent (gadoxetic acid). Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204(3): 498–509. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.12399.

8. Kojiro M. ‘Nodule-in-nodule’ appearance in hepatocellular carcinoma: its significance as a morphologic marker of dedifferentiation. Intervirology. 2004; 47(3–5): 179–83. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078470.

9. An С, Rhee H, Han K, et al. Added value of smooth hypointense rim in the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in identifying tumour capsule and diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(6): 2610–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4634-6.

10. Tang A. Using MRI to assess microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology. 2020; 297(3): 582–3. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020203376.

11. Zech CJ, Ba-Ssalamah A, Berg T, et al. Consensus report from the 8th international forum for liver magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30(1): 370–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06369-4.

12. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, et al. Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018; 68(2): 723–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29913.

13. 2018 Korean Liver Cancer Association – National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut Liver. 2019; 13(3): 227–99. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl19024.

14. Benson AB, D’Angelica MI, Abbott DE, et al. Guidelines insights: hepatobiliary cancers, version 2.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019; 17(4): 302–10. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0019.

15. Vogel A, Cervantes A, Chau I, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018; 29(Suppl. 4): 238–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy308.

16. Kudo M, Matsul O, Izumi N, et al. JSH consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2014 update by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Liver Cancer. 2014; 3(3–4): 458–68. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343875.

17. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of benign liver tumors. J Hepatol. 2016; 65(2): 386–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2016.04.001.

18. Clinical guidelines “Hepatocellular carcinoma”. Available at: https://old.oncology-association.ru/files/clinicalguidelines-2020/rak_pecheni.pdf (accessed August 18, 2021) (in Russ.).

19. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016; 27(8): 1386–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw235.

20. Zech C, Grazioli L, Jonas E, et al. Health-economic evaluation of three imaging strategies in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI vs. extracellular contrast media-enhanced MRI and 3-phase MDCT in Germany, Italy and Sweden. Eur Radiol. 2009; 19(Suppl. 3): 753–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1432-4.

21. Lee JM, Kim MJ, Phongkitkarun S, et al. Health economic evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI vs ECCM–MRI and multidetector computed tomography in patients with suspected hepatocellular carcinoma in Thailand and South Korea. J Med Econ. 2016; 19(6): 759–68. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2016.1171230.

22. Nishie A, Goshima S, Haradome H, et al. Cost-effectivenss of EOB-MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan. Clin Ther. 2017; 39(3): 738–50.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.03.006.

23. Kang TW, Kong SY, Kang D, et al. Use of gadoxetic acidenhanced liver MRI and mortality in more than 30000 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a nationwide analysis. Radiology. 2020; 295(1): 114–24. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020190639.