Cost-analysis comparison of clinical risk assessment with and without ROMA for the management of women with pelvic masses

Abstract

Objective: Pelvic masses can be classified as low risk (likely benign) and high risk (likely malignant) based on an initial clinical risk assessment, which involves a detailed history, physical exam, basic laboratory tests, and imaging. In recent years, the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA), which combines CA125, HE4 and menopausal status, has emerged as a powerful tool in the classification of pelvic masses and triage of patients to either a generalist gynecologist or a gynecologic oncologist for management. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the use of ROMA, alone or in combination with Initial Clinical Risk Assessment (ICRA), provides cost savings compared to triage based on ICRA alone. Methods: A health-economic decision model was developed to assess clinical and cost differences associated with three different clinical pathways of risk assessment for a pelvic mass: ICRA alone, ROMA alone, or ICRA + ROMA in combination. Using previously reported accuracy rates and patient characteristics from a prospective, multicenter, blinded clinical trial, total healthcare costs were modeled for each clinical pathway using the Medicare 2020 reimbursement rates. Results: A total of 461 patients with pelvic masses were included with 10.4% ultimately diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Total healthcare costs for patients with benign disease, EOC, or low malignant potential tumors (LMP) (n = 441) triaged using ROMA alone were 3.3% lower than when triaged using ICRA alone. While lab costs increased 55% using ROMA, the use of ROMA alone resulted in a 4% decrease in laparoscopy costs and a 3.1% decrease in laparotomy costs compared with ICRA alone. Similarly, total costs associated with a combination of ICRA + ROMA were 3.9% lower than total costs associated with ICRA alone. The model also predicted a 63% reduction in repeat surgeries resulting from false negative ICRA when using ROMA to triage patients. Conclusion: Triage of women with pelvic masses using the more sensitive ROMA score lowers overall healthcare costs compared to ICRA alone. With fewer false negative results than ICRA alone, the ROMA score improves initial detection of malignancy and reduces second surgical treatments in women with pelvic masses.