Finding cancer in primary care outpatients with low back pain a comparison of diagnostic strategies

J. D. Joines, R. A. McNutt, T. S. Carey, Richard (Rick) Deyo, R. Rouhani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for diagnosing cancer in primary care patients with low back pain. Strategies differed in their use of clinical findings, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plain x-rays prior to imaging and biopsy. DESIGN: Decision analysis and cost effectiveness analysis with sensitivity analyses. Strategies were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic cost effectiveness ratios. SETTING: Hypothetical. MEASUREMENTS: Estimates of disease prevalence and test characteristics were taken from the literature. Costs were represented by the Medicare reimbursement for the tests and procedures employed. MAIN RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the imaging procedure prior to a single biopsy, strategies ranged in sensitivity from 0.40 to 0.73, with corresponding diagnostic costs of $14 to $241 per patient and average cost effectiveness ratios of $5,283 to $49.814 per case of cancer found. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios varied from $8,397 to $624,781; five strategies were dominant in the baseline analysis. Use of a higher ESR cutoff point (50 mm/hr) improved specificity and cost effectiveness for certain strategies. Imaging with MRI, or bone scan followed in series by MRI, resulted in fewer unnecessary biopsies than imaging with bone scan alone. Cancer prevalence was an important determinant of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a strategy of imaging patients who have a clinical finding (history of cancer, age≥50 years, weight loss, or failure to improve with conservative therapy) in combination with either an elevated ESR (≥50 mm/hr) or a positive x-ray, or using the same approach but imaging directly those patients with a history of cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)14-23
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Primary Health Care
Outpatients
Blood Sedimentation
Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Biopsy
X-Rays
Costs and Cost Analysis
Bone and Bones
Decision Support Techniques
Medicare
Weight Loss
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Decision analysis
  • Low back pain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Finding cancer in primary care outpatients with low back pain a comparison of diagnostic strategies. / Joines, J. D.; McNutt, R. A.; Carey, T. S.; Deyo, Richard (Rick); Rouhani, R.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2001, p. 14-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{26ed922c008c450db70c7c4a4fa9a987,
title = "Finding cancer in primary care outpatients with low back pain a comparison of diagnostic strategies",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for diagnosing cancer in primary care patients with low back pain. Strategies differed in their use of clinical findings, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plain x-rays prior to imaging and biopsy. DESIGN: Decision analysis and cost effectiveness analysis with sensitivity analyses. Strategies were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic cost effectiveness ratios. SETTING: Hypothetical. MEASUREMENTS: Estimates of disease prevalence and test characteristics were taken from the literature. Costs were represented by the Medicare reimbursement for the tests and procedures employed. MAIN RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the imaging procedure prior to a single biopsy, strategies ranged in sensitivity from 0.40 to 0.73, with corresponding diagnostic costs of $14 to $241 per patient and average cost effectiveness ratios of $5,283 to $49.814 per case of cancer found. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios varied from $8,397 to $624,781; five strategies were dominant in the baseline analysis. Use of a higher ESR cutoff point (50 mm/hr) improved specificity and cost effectiveness for certain strategies. Imaging with MRI, or bone scan followed in series by MRI, resulted in fewer unnecessary biopsies than imaging with bone scan alone. Cancer prevalence was an important determinant of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a strategy of imaging patients who have a clinical finding (history of cancer, age≥50 years, weight loss, or failure to improve with conservative therapy) in combination with either an elevated ESR (≥50 mm/hr) or a positive x-ray, or using the same approach but imaging directly those patients with a history of cancer.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness analysis, Decision analysis, Low back pain",
author = "Joines, {J. D.} and McNutt, {R. A.} and Carey, {T. S.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and R. Rouhani",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.00249.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "14--23",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Finding cancer in primary care outpatients with low back pain a comparison of diagnostic strategies

AU - Joines, J. D.

AU - McNutt, R. A.

AU - Carey, T. S.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Rouhani, R.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for diagnosing cancer in primary care patients with low back pain. Strategies differed in their use of clinical findings, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plain x-rays prior to imaging and biopsy. DESIGN: Decision analysis and cost effectiveness analysis with sensitivity analyses. Strategies were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic cost effectiveness ratios. SETTING: Hypothetical. MEASUREMENTS: Estimates of disease prevalence and test characteristics were taken from the literature. Costs were represented by the Medicare reimbursement for the tests and procedures employed. MAIN RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the imaging procedure prior to a single biopsy, strategies ranged in sensitivity from 0.40 to 0.73, with corresponding diagnostic costs of $14 to $241 per patient and average cost effectiveness ratios of $5,283 to $49.814 per case of cancer found. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios varied from $8,397 to $624,781; five strategies were dominant in the baseline analysis. Use of a higher ESR cutoff point (50 mm/hr) improved specificity and cost effectiveness for certain strategies. Imaging with MRI, or bone scan followed in series by MRI, resulted in fewer unnecessary biopsies than imaging with bone scan alone. Cancer prevalence was an important determinant of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a strategy of imaging patients who have a clinical finding (history of cancer, age≥50 years, weight loss, or failure to improve with conservative therapy) in combination with either an elevated ESR (≥50 mm/hr) or a positive x-ray, or using the same approach but imaging directly those patients with a history of cancer.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for diagnosing cancer in primary care patients with low back pain. Strategies differed in their use of clinical findings, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plain x-rays prior to imaging and biopsy. DESIGN: Decision analysis and cost effectiveness analysis with sensitivity analyses. Strategies were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic cost effectiveness ratios. SETTING: Hypothetical. MEASUREMENTS: Estimates of disease prevalence and test characteristics were taken from the literature. Costs were represented by the Medicare reimbursement for the tests and procedures employed. MAIN RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the imaging procedure prior to a single biopsy, strategies ranged in sensitivity from 0.40 to 0.73, with corresponding diagnostic costs of $14 to $241 per patient and average cost effectiveness ratios of $5,283 to $49.814 per case of cancer found. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios varied from $8,397 to $624,781; five strategies were dominant in the baseline analysis. Use of a higher ESR cutoff point (50 mm/hr) improved specificity and cost effectiveness for certain strategies. Imaging with MRI, or bone scan followed in series by MRI, resulted in fewer unnecessary biopsies than imaging with bone scan alone. Cancer prevalence was an important determinant of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a strategy of imaging patients who have a clinical finding (history of cancer, age≥50 years, weight loss, or failure to improve with conservative therapy) in combination with either an elevated ESR (≥50 mm/hr) or a positive x-ray, or using the same approach but imaging directly those patients with a history of cancer.

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Decision analysis

KW - Low back pain

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035156269&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035156269&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.00249.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.00249.x

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 14

EP - 23

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 1

ER -