Literature DB >> 28514203

Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men.

Shivani Pahwa1, Nicholas K Schiltz1, Lee E Ponsky1, Ziang Lu1, Mark A Griswold1, Vikas Gulani1.   

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multiparametric diagnostic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examination followed by MR imaging-guided biopsy strategies in the detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men presenting with clinical suspicion of cancer for the first time. Materials and Methods A decision-analysis model was created for biopsy-naive men who had been recommended for prostate biopsy on the basis of abnormal digital rectal examination results or elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (age groups: 41-50 years, 51-60 years, and 61-70 years). The following three major strategies were evaluated: (a) standard transrectal ultrasonography (US)-guided biopsy; (b) diagnostic MR imaging followed by MR imaging-targeted biopsy, with no biopsy performed if MR imaging findings were negative; and (c) diagnostic MR imaging followed by MR imaging-targeted biopsy, with a standard biopsy performed when MR imaging findings were negative. The following three MR imaging-guided biopsy strategies were further evaluated in each MR imaging category: (a) biopsy with cognitive guidance, (b) biopsy with MR imaging/US fusion guidance, and (c) in-gantry MR imaging-guided biopsy. Model parameters were derived from the literature. The primary outcome measure was net health benefit (NHB), which was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained or lost by investing resources in a new strategy compared with a standard strategy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by using Monte Carlo simulations. Results Noncontrast MR imaging followed by cognitively guided MR biopsy (no standard biopsy if MR imaging findings were negative) was the most cost-effective approach, yielding an additional NHB of 0.198 QALY compared with the standard biopsy approach. Noncontrast MR imaging followed by in-gantry MR imaging-guided biopsy (no standard biopsy if MR imaging findings were negative) led to the highest NHB gain of 0.251 additional QALY compared with the standard biopsy strategy. All MR imaging strategies were cost-effective in 94.05% of Monte Carlo simulations. Analysis by age groups yielded similar results. Conclusion MR imaging-guided strategies for the detection of prostate cancer were cost-effective compared with the standard biopsy strategy in a decision-analysis model. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28514203      PMCID: PMC5621719          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162181

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  41 in total

1.  Fieller's method and net health benefits.

Authors:  D F Heitjan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy.

Authors:  A Takenaka; R Hara; T Ishimura; T Fujii; Y Jo; A Nagai; M Fujisawa
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2007-05-29       Impact factor: 5.554

3.  Estimating lead time and overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening from prostate cancer incidence trends.

Authors:  Donatello Telesca; Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-05-14       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer?

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Cost-effectiveness of standard vs intensive antibiotic regimens for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy prophylaxis.

Authors:  Mehrad Adibi; Margaret S Pearle; Yair Lotan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; David P Wood; James A Eastham; Ofer Yossepowitch; Danny M Rabah; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Jeanette M Broering; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence.

Authors:  Gabriel P Haas; Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Richard F Jones; Vishal Chandan; Angel M Serio; Andrew J Vickers; Mary Jumbelic; Gregory Threatte; Rus Korets; Hans Lilja; Gustavo de la Roza
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective.

Authors:  Maarten de Rooij; Simone Crienen; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz; Maroeska M Rovers; Janneke P C Grutters
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-12-21       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  21 in total

1.  Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting 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

2.  18F-Choline PET/mpMRI for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Part 2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

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

3.  Robotic-assisted transrectal MRI-guided biopsy. Technical feasibility and role in the current diagnosis of prostate cancer: an initial single-center experience.

Authors:  Joan C Vilanova; Anna Pérez de Tudela; Josep Puig; Martijn Hoogenboom; Joaquim Barceló; Montse Planas; Sònia Sala; Santiago Thió-Henestrosa
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-23

4.  Template for MR Visualization and Needle Targeting.

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

5.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy allows for equivalent cancer detection with significantly fewer needle cores in biopsy-naive men.

Authors:  Vidhush K Yarlagadda; Win Shun Lai; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 7.  All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Derek J Lomas; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 66.675

8.  Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid Biparametric MRI Protocol for Detection of Histologically Proven Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Verena C Obmann; Shivani Pahwa; William Tabayayong; Yun Jiang; Gregory O'Connor; Sara Dastmalchian; John Lu; Soham Shah; Karin A Herrmann; Raj Paspulati; Gregory MacLennan; Lee Ponsky; Robert Abouassaly; Vikas Gulani
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 9.  The challenge of prostate biopsy guidance in the era of mpMRI detected lesion: ultrasound-guided versus in-bore biopsy.

Authors:  Auke Jager; Joan C Vilanova; Massimo Michi; Hessel Wijkstra; Jorg R Oddens
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and MRI-guided biopsy in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting using a micro-simulation model.

Authors:  Abraham M Getaneh; Eveline Am Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.