Literature DB >> 24991343

Budget impact model: epigenetic assay can help avoid unnecessary repeated prostate biopsies and reduce healthcare spending.

Wade Aubry1, Robert Lieberthal2, Arnold Willis3, Grant Bagley4, Simon M Willis5, Andrew Layton6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of prostate cancer involves invasive, sometimes harmful, procedures that can entail negative quality-of-life implications to individuals and high additional costs to the US healthcare system when these procedures result in retesting and iatrogenic harms. It is estimated that $1.86 billion is spent annually on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing alone. An advanced epigenetic molecular diagnostic test that uses methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction to assess the DNA methylation status of GSTP1, APC, and RASSF1 genes associated with oncogenesis enables a higher degree of accuracy (previously unattainable through prostate biopsy procedures alone) and produces clinical, financial, and health benefits by reducing the number of medically unnecessary and costly repeated biopsies that are part of today's standard of care.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to quantify, using a budget impact model, the effect of a relatively new epigenetic assay on healthcare costs for commercial health plans that reimburse for the assay, by avoiding unnecessary repeated prostate biopsy procedures.
METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to test the hypothesis that the epigenetic assay can produce cost-saving benefits to health plans, as well as clinical benefits to urologists and patients with prostate cancer, by providing guidance on how to offer patients more appropriate, and less costly, care. The budget impact model is presented from the perspective of a hypothetical commercial health plan, and direct costs are calculated over a 1-year time horizon, using 2013 Medicare fee-for-service rates. Using a plan of 1 million members, the model compares 1-year costs in a "reference scenario," in which the epigenetic assay is not used for the screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer, to costs in a "new scenario," in which the epigenetic assay is used to distinguish true-negative prostate biopsy results from false-negative biopsy results.
RESULTS: Based on this analysis, administering the epigenetic assay to patients with histopathologically negative biopsies would result in a reduction of 1106 unnecessary biopsies for a health plan with 1 million members. The total 1-year cost of repeated prostate cancer biopsies to the health plan was found to be $2,864,142 in the reference scenario and $2,333,341 in the new scenario. This translates to a total budget impact, or an annual savings, of $530,801 to the plan. The total diagnostic cost was calculated to be $2584 per patient in the new scenario (using the genetic assay) compared with $3172 per patient in the reference scenario (that did not use the assay), resulting in a savings of $588 per patient management.
CONCLUSION: This analysis shows that the net cost to a commercial health plan with 1 million members would be reduced by approximately $500,000 if patients with histopathologically negative biopsies were managed with the use of the epigenetic assay to differentiate patients who should undergo repeated biopsy and those who should not. Using this genetic-based assay can save costs to health plans and to the US healthcare and improve the clinical management of patients with elevated PSA levels.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 24991343      PMCID: PMC4031702     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits        ISSN: 1942-2962


  15 in total

Review 1.  The epigenetic promise for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Leander Van Neste; James G Herman; Gaëtan Otto; Joseph W Bigley; Jonathan I Epstein; Wim Van Criekinge
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 4.104

2.  Evaluation of GSTP1 and APC methylation as indicators for repeat biopsy in a high-risk cohort of men with negative initial prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Bruce J Trock; Michelle J Brotzman; Leslie A Mangold; Joseph W Bigley; Jonathan I Epstein; David McLeod; Eric A Klein; J Stephen Jones; Songbai Wang; Theresa McAskill; Jyoti Mehrotra; Bhargavi Raghavan; Alan W Partin
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Repeat prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; E David Crawford; Barnett S Kramer; Gerald L Andriole; Edward P Gelmann; Robert Grubb; Robert Greenlee; John K Gohagan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update.

Authors:  Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  The era of personalized medicine in oncology: novel biomarkers ushering in new approaches to cancer therapy.

Authors:  Steve Stricker
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2011-09

6.  Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States.

Authors:  Michael W Drazer; Dezheng Huo; Mara A Schonberg; Aria Razmaria; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Budget impact analysis of a new prostate cancer risk index for prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  M B Nichol; J Wu; J J An; J Huang; D Denham; S Frencher; S J Jacobsen
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 5.554

8.  Prostate cancer detection with office based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population.

Authors:  John C Rabets; J Stephen Jones; Amit Patel; Craig D Zippe
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Quantitative, spatial resolution of the epigenetic field effect in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jyoti Mehrotra; Shobha Varde; Haiying Wang; Hsiling Chiu; Janet Vargo; Karen Gray; Raymond B Nagle; Jaclyn R Neri; Abhijit Mazumder
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 4.104

Review 10.  Cost analysis of screening for, diagnosing, and staging prostate cancer based on a systematic review of published studies.

Authors:  Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonardo A Stroud; Yanjing Chen
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Addressing the need for repeat prostate biopsy: new technology and approaches.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; Frederick Kelcz; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Use of the 4Kscore test to predict the risk of aggressive prostate cancer prior to prostate biopsy: Overall cost savings and improved quality of care to the us healthcare system.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Voigt; Yan Dong; Vincent Linder; Stephen Zappala
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2017

Review 3.  Optimal Use of Tumor-Based Molecular Assays for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Soum D Lokeshwar; Jamil S Syed; Daniel Segal; Syed N Rahman; Preston C Sprenkle
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Impact of MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy on biopsy-naïve patients: A single urologist's experience.

Authors:  Muammer Altok; Cihan Demirel; Hyunseon C Kang; Haesun Choi; David John; Irene A Inguillo; John W Davis; John F Ward
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2021-05-04

5.  Reduced Rate of Repeated Prostate Biopsies Observed in ConfirmMDx Clinical Utility Field Study.

Authors:  Kirk J Wojno; Frank J Costa; Robert J Cornell; Jeffrey D Small; Erik Pasin; Wim Van Criekinge; Joseph W Bigley; Leander Van Neste
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2014-05

Review 6.  The epigenetics of prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis: update on clinical applications.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; Nathan A Damaschke; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.808

7.  A panel of DNA methylation markers reveals extensive methylation in histologically benign prostate biopsy cores from cancer patients.

Authors:  Igor Brikun; Deborah Nusskern; Daniel Gillen; Amy Lynn; Daniel Murtagh; John Feczko; William G Nelson; Diha Freije
Journal:  Biomark Res       Date:  2014-12-12

Review 8.  Cost consideration in utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ryan Hutchinson; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06

9.  Epidemiological and Economic Evaluation of a Pilot Prostate Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Dariga S Smailova; Elisa Fabbro; Serik E Ibrayev; Luca Brusati; Yuliya M Semenova; Umutzhan S Samarova; Farida S Rakhimzhanova; Sabit M Zhussupov; Zaituna A Khismetova; Hengameh Hosseini
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2020-01-27

Review 10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.