14 research outputs found

    Clinical emergence of neurometastatic merkel cell carcinoma: a surgical case series and literature review

    Get PDF
    Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare cutaneous neuroendocrine neoplasm of possible viral origin and is known for its aggressive behavior. The incidence of MCC has increased in the last 15 years. Merkel cell carcinoma has the potential to metastasize, but rarely involves the central nervous system. Herein, we report three consecutive surgical cases of MCC presenting at a single institution within 1 year. We used intracavitary BCNU wafers (GliadelŸ) in two cases. Pathological features, including CK20 positivity, consistent with MCC, were present in all cases. We found 33 published cases of MCC with CNS involvement. We suggest that the incidence of neurometastatic MCC may be increasing, parallel to the increasing incidence of primary MCC. We propose a role for intracavitary BCNU wafers in the treatment of intra-axial neurometastatic MCC

    A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia

    Get PDF
    Background and Objectives: The Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial demonstrated that Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) based screening reduces prostate cancer deaths compared with an age matched control group. Utilising the prostate cancer detection rates from this study we have investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a similar PSA-based screening strategy for an Australian population of men aged 50-69 years. Methods: A decision model that incorporated Markov processes was developed from a health system perspective.The base case scenario compared a population-based screening programme with current opportunistic screening practices. Costs, utility values, treatment patterns and background mortality rates were derived from Australian data. All costs were adjusted to reflect July 2015 Australian dollars. An alternative scenario compared systematic with opportunistic screening but with optimisation of active surveillance (AS) uptake in both groups. A discount rate of 5% for costs and benefits was utilised. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of variable uncertainty on model outcomes. Results: Our model very closely replicated the number of deaths from both prostate cancer and background mortality in the Göteborg study. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PSA screening was AU147,528.However,foryearsoflifegained(LYGs)PSAbasedscreening(AU147,528. However, for years of life gained (LYGs) PSA based screening (AU45,890/LYG) appeared more favourable. Our alternative scenario with optimised AS improved cost-utility to AU45,881/QALY,withscreeningbecomingcost−effectiveata92AU45,881/QALY, with screening becoming cost-effective at a 92% AS uptake rate. Both modelled scenarios were most sensitive to the utility of patients before and after intervention, and the discount rate used. Conclusion: PSA-based screening is not cost-effective compared to Australia’s assumed willingness to pay threshold of AU50,000/QALY. It appears more cost-effective if LYGs are used as the relevant outcome, and is more cost effective than the established Australian breast cancer screening programme on this basis. Optimised utilisation of AS increases the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening dramatically
    corecore