Literature DB >> 22088331

The cost-effectiveness of immediate treatment, percutaneous biopsy and active surveillance for the diagnosis of the small solid renal mass: evidence from a Markov model.

Marta E Heilbrun1, Junhua Yu, Kenneth J Smith, Christopher B Dechet, Ronald J Zagoria, Mark S Roberts.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The most effective diagnostic strategy for the very small, incidentally detected solid renal mass is uncertain. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding percutaneous biopsy or active surveillance to the diagnosis of a 2 cm or less solid renal mass.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov state transition model was developed to observe a hypothetical cohort of healthy 60-year-old men with an incidentally detected, 2 or less cm solid renal mass, comparing percutaneous biopsy, immediate treatment and active surveillance. The primary outcomes assessed were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio measured by cost per life-year gained at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. Model results were assessed by sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Immediate treatment was the highest cost, most effective diagnostic strategy, providing the longest overall survival of 18.53 life-years. Active surveillance was the lowest cost, least effective diagnostic strategy. On cost-effectiveness analysis using a societal willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 active surveillance was the preferred choice at a $75,000 willingness to pay threshold while biopsy and treatment were acceptable ($56,644 and $70,149 per life-year, respectively). When analysis was adjusted for quality of life, biopsy dominated immediate treatment as the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy at $33,840 per quality adjusted life-year gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous biopsy may have a greater role in optimizing the diagnosis of an incidentally detected, 2 cm or less solid renal mass.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22088331     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  8 in total

Review 1.  CT and MRI of small renal masses.

Authors:  Zhen J Wang; Antonio C Westphalen; Ronald J Zagoria
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Percutaneous biopsy for risk stratification of renal masses.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; Anna Drewry; Edwin Jason Abel
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2015-10

3.  Utilization of renal mass biopsy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  John T Leppert; Janet Hanley; Todd H Wagner; Benjamin I Chung; Sandy Srinivas; Glenn M Chertow; James D Brooks; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 4.  Postoperative surveillance imaging for patients undergoing nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Eric H Kim; Seth A Strope
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  The contemporary role of renal mass biopsy in the management of small renal tumors.

Authors:  Amy Lim; Brock O'Neil; Marta E Heilbrun; Christopher Dechet; William T Lowrance
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Solid renal masses in adults.

Authors:  Mahesh Kumar Mittal; Binit Sureka
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

7.  Trends in the kidney cancer mortality-to-incidence ratios according to health care expenditures of 56 countries.

Authors:  Wen-Wei Sung; Po-Yun Ko; Wen-Jung Chen; Shao-Chuan Wang; Sung-Lang Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 8.  A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Biomarkers.

Authors:  Marije Oosterhoff; Marloes E van der Maas; Lotte M G Steuten
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.561

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.