Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Jan;125(1):16-24.
doi: 10.1002/lary.24780. Epub 2014 Jun 17.

Cost-effectiveness of the endoscopic versus microscopic approach for pituitary adenoma resection

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Cost-effectiveness of the endoscopic versus microscopic approach for pituitary adenoma resection

Luke Rudmik et al. Laryngoscope. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives/hypothesis: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an endoscopic versus microscopic approach to pituitary adenoma resection.

Study design: Markov decision tree economic evaluation.

Methods: An economic evaluation using a Markov decision tree model was performed. The economic perspective was that of the healthcare third-party payer. Effectiveness and probability data were obtained from a single meta-analysis of 38 studies. Costs were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and wholesale pharmaceutical pricing. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Comparative treatment groups were: 1) endoscopic approach and 2) microscopic approach to pituitary adenoma resection. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The time horizon was 25 years, and costs were discounted at a rate of 3.5%.

Results: The endoscopic approach cost a total of $17,244.63 and produced a total of 24.30 QALYs. The microscopic approach cost a total of $23,756.60 and produced a total of 24.20 QALYs. In the reference case, the endoscopic approach was a dominant intervention (both less costly and more effective); therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not calculated. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated 79% certainty that the endoscopic approach is the cost-effective decision, at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY.

Conclusions: This economic evaluation suggests that the endoscopic approach is the more cost-effective intervention compared to the microscopic approach for patients requiring a pituitary adenoma resection.

Keywords: Pituitary adenoma; cost utility analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; economic evaluation; endoscopic; hypophysectomy; microscopic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources