Literature DB >> 28370948

Cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score compared to standard of care in prostate cancer diagnostics - a decision analytical model.

Siebren Dijkstra1, Tim M Govers2, Rianne J Hendriks1, Jack A Schalken1, Wim Van Criekinge3, Leander Van Neste4, Janneke P C Grutters2,5, John P Michiel Sedelaar1, Inge M van Oort1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score (SelectMDx; MDxHealth, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) to identify patients for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy and to compare this with the current standard of care (SOC), using only prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to select for TRUS-guided biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SelectMDx as a reflex test vs SOC in men with a PSA level of >3 ng/mL. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were derived from the literature and expert opinion. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs of both diagnostic strategies, simulating the course of patients over a time horizon representing 18 years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty in assumptions.
RESULTS: A diagnostic strategy including SelectMDx with a cut-off chosen at a sensitivity of 95.7% for high-grade prostate cancer resulted in savings of €128 and a gain of 0.025 QALY per patient compared to the SOC strategy. The sensitivity analyses showed that the disutility assigned to active surveillance had a high impact on the QALYs gained and the disutility attributed to TRUS-guided biopsy only slightly influenced the outcome of the model.
CONCLUSION: Based on the currently available evidence, the reduction of over diagnosis and overtreatment due to the use of the SelectMDx test in men with PSA levels of >3 ng/mL may lead to a reduction in total costs per patient and a gain in QALYs.
© 2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SelectMDx; biomarker; cost-effectiveness analysis; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28370948     DOI: 10.1111/bju.13861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  20 in total

Review 1.  [Urinary marker-old wine in new bottles?]

Authors:  K Fischer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Differentiating Molecular Risk Assessments for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Benjamin Press; Michael Schulster; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

3.  Assessment of men's risk thresholds to proceed with prostate biopsy for the early detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kevin Koo; Elias S Hyams
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Christopher J Cadham; Marie Knoll; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; K Michael Cummings; Clifford E Douglas; Alex Liber; David Mendez; Rafael Meza; Ritesh Mistry; Aylin Sertkaya; Nargiz Travis; David T Levy
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 2.749

5.  Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Giuseppe Dibenedetto; Ludovica Pepe; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 6.  [The long journey from palpation to biopsy : The history of diagnosing prostate cancer].

Authors:  J Konert; L Sentker; C August; M Hatzinger
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Prospective assessment of two-gene urinary test with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for men undergoing primary prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Gian Maria Busetto; Francesco Del Giudice; Martina Maggi; Ferdinando De Marco; Angelo Porreca; Isabella Sperduti; Fabio Massimo Magliocca; Stefano Salciccia; Benjamin I Chung; Ettore De Berardinis; Alessandro Sciarra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Prostate Cancer Imaging and Biomarkers Guiding Safe Selection of Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 9.  Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Role of Available Biomarkers in Daily Practice.

Authors:  Belén Pastor-Navarro; José Rubio-Briones; Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis M Esteban; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; José Antonio López-Guerrero
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  Economic Evaluation of Urine-Based or Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reflex Tests in Men With Intermediate Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels in the United States.

Authors:  Boshen Jiao; Roman Gulati; Nathaniel Hendrix; John L Gore; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Todd M Morgan; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 5.101

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.