Literature DB >> 19351214

Cost effectiveness of risk-prediction tools in selecting patients for immediate post-prostatectomy treatment.

Valentina Bayer Zubek1, Andre Konski.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Ideally, tests that predict the risk of cancer recurrence should be capable of guiding treatment decisions that are both therapeutically effective and cost effective. This paper evaluates the cost effectiveness of two tools that identify patients at high risk for biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) recurrence of prostate cancer after prostatectomy, the hypothesis being that accurate classification of high-risk patients will allow more appropriate use of secondary (adjuvant/salvage) treatment and may improve on current clinical practice. These risk-prediction tools are the Kattan postoperative nomogram, which uses clinicopathologic features, and the Prostate Px test, which employs additional morphometric and immunofluorescence features of the prostate specimen to predict risk of biochemical recurrence. These tools were trained on patients treated at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (996 patients for the nomogram, 342 patients for the Prostate Px test).
METHODS: The cost effectiveness of the Prostate Px test, the Kattan postoperative nomogram, and current clinical practice were compared using a decision analytic model. The modeled treatment for low-risk patients was watchful waiting. The modeled treatments for high-risk patients were local radiation, hormonal therapy, and watchful waiting. Costs, utilities, and transition probabilities were obtained from the literature. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% per year. The time span modeled was 10 years after prostatectomy. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to estimate cost and effectiveness; sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of uncertainty in the parameter values.
RESULTS: The expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the Prostate Px test, nomogram, and current practice were 8.11, 7.39, and 6.47, respectively. The expected costs were $US17 549, $US14 162, and $US14 104, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the Prostate Px was $US4704/QALY compared with the nomogram, and $US2100/QALY compared with current practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the nomogram was $US63/QALY compared with current practice. These ratios are well below the common willingness-to-pay limit of $US50 000/QALY. Expected effectiveness was highest for the Prostate Px test, followed by the nomogram. Expected cost was slightly higher for Prostate Px than for either alternative; nevertheless, the Prostate Px was cost effective compared with both the nomogram and current practice. The nomogram was cost effective compared with current practice. The acceptable cost effectiveness of the Prostate Px test and the nomogram compared with current practice were not sensitive to changes in the values used to inform the model within clinically plausible ranges. The superior performance of both Prostate Px test and nomogram over current practice resulted from identifying high-risk patients likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment, while sparing the low-risk patients the added cost and toxicity of treatment.
CONCLUSION: Incorporation of risk-prediction tools in the initial management of patients after prostatectomy resulted in increased QALYs at an acceptable increase in cost relative to current practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19351214     DOI: 10.1007/bf03256313

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther        ISSN: 1177-1062            Impact factor:   4.074


  38 in total

1.  Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  John Hornberger; Leon E Cosler; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 2.  Postprostatectomy radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Pollack
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.934

3.  Validation study of the accuracy of a postoperative nomogram for recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ilias Cagiannos; Eric Klein; Patrick A Kupelian; David I Quinn; Susan M Henshall; John J Grygiel; Robert L Sutherland; Phillip D Stricker; Jean de Kernion; Thomas Cangiano; Fritz H Schröder; Mark F Wildhagen; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Evaluating the yield of medical tests.

Authors:  F E Harrell; R M Califf; D B Pryor; K L Lee; R A Rosati
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Bone mineral density in men treated with synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for prostatic carcinoma.

Authors:  J F Maillefert; J Sibilia; F Michel; C Saussine; R M Javier; C Tavernier
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of bicalutamide (Casodex) for adjuvant treatment of early prostate cancer.

Authors:  Karen Moeremans; Karin Caekelbergh; Lieven Annemans
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Early versus delayed hormonal therapy for prostate specific antigen only recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Judd W Moul; Hongyu Wu; Leon Sun; David G McLeod; Christopher Amling; Timothy Donahue; Leo Kusuda; Wade Sexton; Keith O'Reilly; Javier Hernandez; Andrew Chung; Douglas Soderdahl
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: an expensive way to die.

Authors:  N Y Piper; L Kusada; R Lance; J Foley; J Moul; T Seay
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.554

9.  Use of additional treatment for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, androgen deprivation, or watchful waiting.

Authors:  Viktor Berge; Trevor Thompson; Donald Blackman
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007

10.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in prostate cancer.

Authors:  N W Calvert; A B Morgan; J W F Catto; F C Hamdy; R L Akehurst; P Mouncey; S Paisley
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-01-13       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  4 in total

1.  Costs of early adjuvant radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: a decision analysis.

Authors:  T N Showalter; K A Foley; E Jutkowitz; C D Lallas; E J Trabulsi; L G Gomella; A P Dicker; L T Pizzi
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Early versus deferred standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Authors:  Frank Kunath; Katrin Jensen; Mariona Pinart; Andreas Kahlmeyer; Stefanie Schmidt; Carrie L Price; Verena Lieb; Philipp Dahm
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-06-11

3.  Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas Grochtdreis; Hans-Helmut König; Alexander Dobruschkin; Gunhild von Amsberg; Judith Dams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Health Economic Evidence for Liquid- and Tissue-based Molecular Tests that Inform Decisions on Prostate Biopsies and Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Koen Degeling; Amanda Pereira-Salgado; Niall M Corcoran; Paul C Boutros; Peter Kuhn; Maarten J IJzerman
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-03-26
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.