Wulphert Venderink1, Tim M Govers2, Maarten de Rooij1, Jurgen J Fütterer1, J P Michiel Sedelaar3. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. 2 Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. 3 Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Three commonly used prostate biopsy approaches are systematic transrectal ultrasound guided, direct in-bore MRI guided, and image fusion guided. The aim of this study was to calculate which strategy is most cost-effective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were developed to compare cost-effectiveness. Literature review and expert opinion were used as input. A strategy was deemed cost-effective if the costs of gaining one quality-adjusted life year (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000 (≈$85,000 in January 2017). A base case analysis was performed to compare systematic transrectal ultrasound- and image fusion-guided biopsies. Because of a lack of appropriate literature regarding the accuracy of direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy, a threshold analysis was performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fusion-guided biopsy compared with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy was €1386 ($1470) per quality-adjusted life year gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus assumed cost-effective. If MRI findings are normal in a patient with clinically significant prostate cancer, the sensitivity of direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy has to be at least 88.8%. If that is the case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is €80,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained and thus cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Fusion-guided biopsy seems to be cost-effective compared with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Future research is needed to determine whether direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy is the best pathway; in this study a threshold was calculated at which it would be cost-effective.
OBJECTIVE: Three commonly used prostate biopsy approaches are systematic transrectal ultrasound guided, direct in-bore MRI guided, and image fusion guided. The aim of this study was to calculate which strategy is most cost-effective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were developed to compare cost-effectiveness. Literature review and expert opinion were used as input. A strategy was deemed cost-effective if the costs of gaining one quality-adjusted life year (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000 (≈$85,000 in January 2017). A base case analysis was performed to compare systematic transrectal ultrasound- and image fusion-guided biopsies. Because of a lack of appropriate literature regarding the accuracy of direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy, a threshold analysis was performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fusion-guided biopsy compared with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy was €1386 ($1470) per quality-adjusted life year gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus assumed cost-effective. If MRI findings are normal in a patient with clinically significant prostate cancer, the sensitivity of direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy has to be at least 88.8%. If that is the case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is €80,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained and thus cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Fusion-guided biopsy seems to be cost-effective compared with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Future research is needed to determine whether direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy is the best pathway; in this study a threshold was calculated at which it would be cost-effective.
Entities:
Keywords:
MRI; biopsy; cost-effectiveness; prostate cancer
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Christine L Barnett; Matthew S Davenport; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Lakshmi Priya Kunju; Brian T Denton; Morand Piert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Rui Li; Sheng Xu; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Ismail B Turkbey; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford Wood; Zion T H Tse Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Charles Van Praet; Iulia Andras; Pierre Kadula; Razvan Ognean; Maximilian Buzoianu; Daniel Leucuta; Cosmin Caraiani; Attila Tamas-Szora; Karel Decaestecker; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-05