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
  • [31] Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Microsimulation of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Localized Prostate Cancer
    Magnani, Christopher J.
    Hernandez-Boussard, Tina
    Baker, Laurence C.
    Goldhaber-Fiebert, Jeremy D.
    Brooks, James D.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 208 (01) : 80 - 89
  • [32] The cost-effectiveness of prostate health index for prostate cancer detection in Chinese men
    Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun
    Leung, Chi-Ho
    Wang, Maggie Haitian
    Chiu, Peter Ka-Fung
    Yee, Chi-Hang
    Ng, Chi-Fai
    Wong, Martin Chi-Sang
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2020, 23 (04) : 615 - 621
  • [33] The cost-effectiveness of expanded testing for primary HIV infection
    Coco, A
    ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2005, 3 (05) : 391 - 399
  • [34] A Digital Behavioral Weight Gain Prevention Intervention in Primary Care Practice: Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Krishnan, Anirudh
    Finkelstein, Eric Andrew
    Levine, Erica
    Foley, Perry
    Askew, Sandy
    Steinberg, Dori
    Bennett, Gary G.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2019, 21 (05)
  • [35] Cost-effectiveness of SelectMDx for prostate cancer in four European countries: a comparative modeling study
    Govers, Tim M.
    Hessels, Daphne
    Vlaeminck-Guillem, Virginie
    Schmitz-Draeger, Bernd J.
    Stief, Christian G.
    Martinez-Ballesteros, Claudio
    Ferro, Matteo
    Borque-Fernando, Angel
    Rubio-Briones, Jose
    Sedelaarll, J. P. Michiel
    van Criekinge, Wim
    Schalken, Jack A.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2019, 22 (01) : 101 - 109
  • [36] THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND COST-BENEFIT-ANALYSIS
    JOHANNESSON, M
    SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1995, 41 (04) : 483 - 489
  • [37] Incorporating Cholera Vaccine Herd Protection into Economic Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Models
    Jeuland, M.
    Maskery, B.
    Cook, J.
    Poulos, C.
    Clemens, J.
    Lauria, D.
    Stewart, J.
    Lucas, M.
    Whittington, D.
    GLOBAL VACCINE RESEARCH FORUM, 2010, 2 (02): : 140 - 146
  • [38] US-guided core breast biopsy: Use and cost-effectiveness
    Liberman, L
    Feng, TL
    Dershaw, DD
    Morris, EA
    Abramson, AF
    RADIOLOGY, 1998, 208 (03) : 717 - 723
  • [39] Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial
    Sharma, Vidit
    Wymer, Kevin M.
    Borah, Bijan J.
    Barocas, Daniel A.
    Thompson, R. Houston
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    Boorjian, Stephen A.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 202 (05) : 966 - 974
  • [40] Cost-effectiveness thresholds: methods for setting and examples from around the world
    Santos, Andre Soares
    Guerra-Junior, Augusto Afonso
    Godman, Brian
    Morton, Alec
    Ruas, Cristina Mariano
    EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2018, 18 (03) : 277 - 288