Two European studies published on the same day have reached opposite conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound screening exams for abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Two European studies published on the same day have reached opposite conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound screening exams for abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Researchers in the U.K. came to a positive conclusion about the exam's cost-effectiveness based on nearly 70,000 subjects enrolled in the Multicenter Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS). A cost/benefit analysis showed average per-life-year gains below the National Health Service's benchmark of £25,000. Danish investigators, on the other hand, reported negative findings using a mathematical model and data from the literature and the Danish Vascular Registry to estimate costs and outcomes for a hypothetical population of Danish men aged 65 from screening to death. Their estimates showed the cost of screening per quality adjusted life year was $71,160, well beyond the local accepted benchmark of $49,530. Both studies were published online June 26 in the British Medical Journal.
Leading Breast Radiologists Discuss the USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations
May 17th 2024In recognition of National Women’s Health Week, Dana Bonaminio, MD, Amy Patel, MD, and Stacy Smith-Foley, MD, shared their thoughts and perspectives on the recently updated breast cancer screening recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
Multicenter CT Study Shows Benefits of Emerging Diagnostic Model for Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
May 15th 2024Combining clinical and CT features, adjunctive use of a classification and regression tree (CART) diagnostic model demonstrated AUCs for detecting clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) that were 15 to 22 percent higher than unassisted radiologist assessments.
CT Study: AI Algorithm Comparable to Radiologists in Differentiating Small Renal Masses
May 14th 2024An emerging deep learning algorithm had a lower AUC and sensitivity than urological radiologists for differentiating between small renal masses on computed tomography (CT) scans but had a 21 percent higher sensitivity rate than non-urological radiologists, according to new research.