Incorporating Biomarkers into the Primary Prostate Biopsy Setting: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

被引:41
|
作者
Sathianathen, Niranjan J. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Kuntz, Karen M. [2 ]
Alarid-Escudero, Fernando [2 ]
Lawrentschuk, Nathan L. [5 ]
Bolton, Damien M. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Murphy, Declan G. [5 ]
Weight, Christopher J. [1 ]
Konety, Badrinath R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Dept Urol, 420 Delaware St Southeast,MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Sch Publ Hlth, Div Hlth Policy & Management, Minneapolis, MN USA
[3] Univ Melbourne, Dept Surg, Urol Unit, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Univ Melbourne, Dept Surg, Olivia Newton John Canc Res Inst, Austin Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Dept Surg Oncol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
prostatic neoplasms; biopsy; biomarkers; tumor; cost-benefit analysis; clinical decision-making; CANCER DETECTION; HEALTH INDEX; GRADE; ANTIGEN; SCORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.016
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using the PHI (Prostate Health Index), 4Kscore (R), SelectMDx (TM) and the EPI (ExoDx (TM) Prostate [Intelli-Score]) in men with elevated prostate specific antigen to determine the need for biopsy. Materials and Methods: We developed a decision analytical model in men with elevated prostate specific antigen (3 ng/ml or greater) in which 1 biomarker test was used to determine which hypothetical individuals required biopsy. In the current standard of care strategy all individuals underwent biopsy. Model parameters were derived from a comprehensive review of the literature. Costs were calculated from a health sector perspective and converted into 2017 United States dollars. Results: The cost and QALYs (quality adjusted life-years) of the current standard of care, which was transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy, was $ 3,863 and 18.085, respectively. Applying any of the 3 biomarkers improved quality adjusted survival compared to the current standard of care. The cost of SelectMDx, the PHI and the EPI was lower than performing prostate biopsy in all patients. However, the PHI was more costly and less effective than the SelectMDx strategy. The EPI provided the highest QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $ 58,404 per QALY. The use of biomarkers could reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies by 24% to 34% compared to the current standard of care. Conclusions: Applying biomarkers in men with elevated prostate specific antigen to determine the need for biopsy improved quality adjusted survival by decreasing the number of biopsies performed and the treatment of indolent disease. Using SelectMDx or the EPI following elevated prostate specific antigen but before proceeding to biopsy is a cost-effective strategy in this setting.
引用
收藏
页码:1215 / 1220
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] NEEDLE CORE BIOPSY GUIDED WITH MAMMOGRAPHY - A STUDY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
    LINDFORS, KK
    ROSENQUIST, CJ
    RADIOLOGY, 1994, 190 (01) : 217 - 222
  • [22] Cost-effectiveness of an urinary biomarker panel in combination with MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis
    Govers, Tim M.
    Resnick, Matthew J.
    Rastinehad, Ardeshir R.
    Caba, Laura
    Groskopf, Jack
    van Criekinge, Wim
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 41 (06) : 1527 - 1532
  • [23] Biomarkers: improving the cost-effectiveness of biological drugs for autoimmune disorders
    Gurwitz, David
    DRUG DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, 2011, 72 (07) : 549 - 552
  • [24] Cost-effectiveness of an urinary biomarker panel in combination with MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis
    Tim M. Govers
    Matthew J Resnick
    Ardeshir R. Rastinehad
    Laura Caba
    Jack Groskopf
    Wim van Criekinge
    World Journal of Urology, 2023, 41 : 1527 - 1532
  • [25] Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with prostate cancer
    Reed, SD
    Radeva, JI
    Glendenning, GA
    Saad, F
    Schulman, KA
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (04) : 1537 - 1542
  • [26] Ethical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis
    Pinkerton, SD
    Johnson-Masotti, AP
    Derse, A
    Layde, PM
    EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING, 2002, 25 (01) : 71 - 83
  • [27] Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis
    Garber, AM
    Phelps, CE
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 1997, 16 (01) : 1 - 31
  • [28] Cost-effectiveness Analysis with Influence Diagrams
    Arias, M.
    Diez, F. J.
    METHODS OF INFORMATION IN MEDICINE, 2015, 54 (04) : 353 - 358
  • [29] Decision Analysis Model Comparing Cost of IsoPSA™ vs Repeat Biopsy for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men with Previous Negative Findings on Biopsy
    Lotan, Yair
    Stovsky, Mark
    Rochelle, Robert
    Klein, Eric
    UROLOGY PRACTICE, 2021, 8 (01) : 40 - 46
  • [30] Observation Versus Initial Treatment for Men With Localized, Low-Risk Prostate Cancer A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Hayes, Julia H.
    Ollendorf, Daniel A.
    Pearson, Steven D.
    Barry, Michael J.
    Kantoff, Philip W.
    Lee, Pablo A.
    McMahon, Pamela M.
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2013, 158 (12) : 853 - +