OBJECTIVE: • To assess the cost-effectiveness of using cytological evaluation, NMP22 BladderChek®, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) UroVysion® in addition to cystoscopy in patients with a history of bladder cancer undergoing surveillance for recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In all, 200 consecutive patients with a history of bladder cancer not invading the muscle were prospectively enrolled at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. • Five surveillance strategies were compared: (i) cystoscopy alone; (ii) cystoscopy and NMP22; (iii) cystoscopy and FISH; (iv) cystoscopy and cytology; and (v) cystoscopy and positive NMP22 confirmed by positive FISH. • The cost per cancer detected was calculated. • For patients with an initial positive test and negative cystoscopy, tumour detected at first follow-up was assumed to be too small to be visualized at the initial assessment and the biomarker was credited with early detection. RESULTS: • Cancer was detected in 13 patients at study entry. • Detection rates for the five surveillance strategies were: (i) 52%, (ii) 56%, (iii) 72%, (iv) 60%, and (v) 56%. • The costs per tumour detected (at the time of initial marker analysis) were (i) $7692; (ii) $12,000; (iii) $26,462; (iv) $11,846; and (v) $10,292. • When early detection of biomarkers was factored in, the CPTD became: (i) $7692; (ii) $11,143; (iii) $19,111; (iv) $10,267; and (v) $9557. • There were 12 new cancers detected at first follow-up (median time, 4.1 months). None of the tumours detected by biomarkers but not by cystoscopy were invasive. CONCLUSIONS: • Cystoscopy alone remains the most cost-effective strategy to detect recurrence of bladder cancer not invading the muscle. • The addition of urinary markers adds to cost, without improved detection of invasive disease.
OBJECTIVE: • To assess the cost-effectiveness of using cytological evaluation, NMP22 BladderChek®, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) UroVysion® in addition to cystoscopy in patients with a history of bladder cancer undergoing surveillance for recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In all, 200 consecutive patients with a history of bladder cancer not invading the muscle were prospectively enrolled at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. • Five surveillance strategies were compared: (i) cystoscopy alone; (ii) cystoscopy and NMP22; (iii) cystoscopy and FISH; (iv) cystoscopy and cytology; and (v) cystoscopy and positive NMP22 confirmed by positive FISH. • The cost per cancer detected was calculated. • For patients with an initial positive test and negative cystoscopy, tumour detected at first follow-up was assumed to be too small to be visualized at the initial assessment and the biomarker was credited with early detection. RESULTS: • Cancer was detected in 13 patients at study entry. • Detection rates for the five surveillance strategies were: (i) 52%, (ii) 56%, (iii) 72%, (iv) 60%, and (v) 56%. • The costs per tumour detected (at the time of initial marker analysis) were (i) $7692; (ii) $12,000; (iii) $26,462; (iv) $11,846; and (v) $10,292. • When early detection of biomarkers was factored in, the CPTD became: (i) $7692; (ii) $11,143; (iii) $19,111; (iv) $10,267; and (v) $9557. • There were 12 new cancers detected at first follow-up (median time, 4.1 months). None of the tumours detected by biomarkers but not by cystoscopy were invasive. CONCLUSIONS: • Cystoscopy alone remains the most cost-effective strategy to detect recurrence of bladder cancer not invading the muscle. • The addition of urinary markers adds to cost, without improved detection of invasive disease.
Authors: Philip H Kim; Ranjit Sukhu; Billy H Cordon; John P Sfakianos; Daniel D Sjoberg; A Ari Hakimi; Guido Dalbagni; Oscar Lin; Harry W Herr Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Elena Panzeri; Donatella Conconi; Laura Antolini; Serena Redaelli; Maria Grazia Valsecchi; Giorgio Bovo; Francesco Pallotti; Paolo Viganò; Guido Strada; Leda Dalprà; Angela Bentivegna Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vivienne Breen; Nikola Kasabov; Ashish M Kamat; Elsie Jacobson; James M Suttie; Paul J O'Sullivan; Laimonis Kavalieris; David G Darling Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Arjun V Balar; Peter C Black; Matthew T Campbell; Gail S Dykstra; Petros Grivas; Shilpa Gupta; Christoper J Hoimes; Lidia P Lopez; Joshua J Meeks; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Neal Shore; Gary D Steinberg; Ashish M Kamat Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 13.751