Literature DB >> 29388388

Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer.

Christine L Barnett1, Matthew S Davenport2, Jeffrey S Montgomery3, John T Wei3, James E Montie3, Brian T Denton1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine how best to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations and whether it can be cost-effective.
METHODS: A Markov model of PCa onset and progression was developed to estimate the health and economic consequences of PCa screening with MRI. Patients underwent PSA screening from ages 55 to 69 years. Patients with elevated PSA concentrations (>4 ng/mL) underwent MRI, followed by targeted fusion or combined (standard + targeted fusion) biopsy on positive MRI, and standard or no biopsy on negative MRI. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score on MRI was used to determine biopsy decisions. Deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated for each strategy.
RESULTS: With a negative MRI, standard biopsy was more expensive and had lower QALYs than performing no biopsy. The optimum screening strategy (ICER $23 483/QALY) recommended combined biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score ≥3 and no biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score <3, and reduced the number of screening biopsies by 15%. Threshold analysis suggests MRI continues to be cost-effective when the sensitivity and specificity of MRI and combined biopsy are simultaneously reduced by 19 percentage points.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests MRI followed by targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy can be a cost-effective approach to the early detection of PCa.
© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  #ProstateCancer; #pcsm; Markov model; biopsy; cost-effectiveness analysis; magnetic resonance imaging

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29388388     DOI: 10.1111/bju.14151

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Clarifying the Trade-Offs of Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

Authors:  Nathaniel Hendrix; Roman Gulati; Boshen Jiao; A Karim Kader; Stephen T Ryan; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  18F-Choline PET/mpMRI for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Part 1. Improved Risk Stratification for MRI-Guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Matthew S Davenport; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Lakshmi Priya Kunju; Javed Siddiqui; Prasad R Shankar; Thekkelnaycke Rajendiran; Xia Shao; Eunjee Lee; Brian Denton; Christine Barnett; Morand Piert
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 11.082

Review 7.  Advances in prostate cancer imaging.

Authors:  Matthew R Tangel; Ardeshir R Rastinehad
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-08-24

8.  Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Biopsy Alone for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Martha M C Elwenspoek; Athena L Sheppard; Matthew D F McInnes; Samuel W D Merriel; Edward W J Rowe; Richard J Bryant; Jenny L Donovan; Penny Whiting
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-08-02

9.  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

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.