Boshen Jiao1, Roman Gulati2, Nathaniel Hendrix3, John L Gore4, Soroush Rais-Bahrami5, Todd M Morgan6, Ruth Etzioni7. 1. Division of Public Health Science, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2. Division of Public Health Science, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: rgulati@fredhutch.org. 3. The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Department of Radiology, and O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 6. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 7. Division of Public Health Science, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: For men with intermediate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (4-10 ng/mL), urine-based biomarkers and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are increasingly used as reflex tests before prostate biopsy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of these reflex tests in the United States. METHODS: We used an existing microsimulation model of prostate cancer (PCa) progression and survival to predict lifetime outcomes for a hypothetical cohort of 55-year-old men with intermediate PSA levels. Urine-based biomarkers-PCa antigen (PCA3), TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion (T2:ERG), and the MyProstateScore (MPS) for any PCa and for high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) PCa (MPShg)-were generated using biomarker data from 1112 men presenting for biopsy at 10 United States institutions. MRI results were based on published sensitivity and specificity for high-grade PCa. Costs and utilities were sourced from literature and Medicare reimbursement schedules. Outcome measures included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime medical costs per patient. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were empirically calculated on the basis of simulated life histories under different reflex testing strategies. RESULTS: Biopsying all men provided the most life years and QALYs, followed by reflex testing using MPShg, MPS, MRI, T2:ERG, PCA3, and biopsying no men (QALY range across strategies 15.98-16.09). Accounting for costs, MRI and MPShg were dominated by other strategies. PCA3, T2:ERG, and MPS were likely to be the most cost-effective strategy at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000/QALY, $125 000/QALY, and $150 000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using PCA3, T2:ERG, or MPS as reflex tests has greater economic value than MRI, biopsying all men, or biopsying no men with intermediate PSA levels.
OBJECTIVES: For men with intermediate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (4-10 ng/mL), urine-based biomarkers and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are increasingly used as reflex tests before prostate biopsy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of these reflex tests in the United States. METHODS: We used an existing microsimulation model of prostate cancer (PCa) progression and survival to predict lifetime outcomes for a hypothetical cohort of 55-year-old men with intermediate PSA levels. Urine-based biomarkers-PCa antigen (PCA3), TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion (T2:ERG), and the MyProstateScore (MPS) for any PCa and for high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) PCa (MPShg)-were generated using biomarker data from 1112 men presenting for biopsy at 10 United States institutions. MRI results were based on published sensitivity and specificity for high-grade PCa. Costs and utilities were sourced from literature and Medicare reimbursement schedules. Outcome measures included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime medical costs per patient. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were empirically calculated on the basis of simulated life histories under different reflex testing strategies. RESULTS: Biopsying all men provided the most life years and QALYs, followed by reflex testing using MPShg, MPS, MRI, T2:ERG, PCA3, and biopsying no men (QALY range across strategies 15.98-16.09). Accounting for costs, MRI and MPShg were dominated by other strategies. PCA3, T2:ERG, and MPS were likely to be the most cost-effective strategy at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000/QALY, $125 000/QALY, and $150 000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using PCA3, T2:ERG, or MPS as reflex tests has greater economic value than MRI, biopsying all men, or biopsying no men with intermediate PSA levels.
Authors: Leander Van Neste; Rianne J Hendriks; Siebren Dijkstra; Geert Trooskens; Erik B Cornel; Sander A Jannink; Hans de Jong; Daphne Hessels; Frank P Smit; Willem J G Melchers; Gisèle H J M Leyten; Theo M de Reijke; Henk Vergunst; Paul Kil; Ben C Knipscheer; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Peter F A Mulders; Inge M van Oort; Wim Van Criekinge; Jack A Schalken Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Elisabeth M Wever; Anssi Auvinen; Jonas Hugosson; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Arnauld Villers; Alvaro Páez; Sue M Moss; Marco Zappa; Teuvo L J Tammela; Tuukka Mäkinen; Sigrid Carlsson; Ida J Korfage; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Suzie J Otto; Gerrit Draisma; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Marianne Månsson; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Sigrid V Carlsson; Kirsi M Talala; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Ulf H Stenman; Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Karin Stinesen Kollberg; Sue M Moss; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Andreas Huber; Theodorus van der Kwast; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Chris Bangma; Harry J De Koning; Fritz H Schröder; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Karim Fizazi; NamPhuong Tran; Luis Fein; Nobuaki Matsubara; Alfredo Rodriguez-Antolin; Boris Y Alekseev; Mustafa Özgüroğlu; Dingwei Ye; Susan Feyerabend; Andrew Protheroe; Giri Sulur; Yesenia Luna; Susan Li; Suneel Mundle; Kim N Chi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Roman Gulati; Elisabeth M Wever; Alex Tsodikov; David F Penson; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Jeffrey Katcher; Shih-Yuan Lee; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: E A M Heijnsdijk; T M de Carvalho; A Auvinen; M Zappa; V Nelen; M Kwiatkowski; A Villers; A Páez; S M Moss; T L J Tammela; F Recker; L Denis; S V Carlsson; E M Wever; C H Bangma; F H Schröder; M J Roobol; J Hugosson; H J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Selin Merdan; Scott A Tomlins; Christine L Barnett; Todd M Morgan; James E Montie; John T Wei; Brian T Denton Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Ziding Feng; David H Howard; Scott A Tomlins; Lori J Sokoll; Daniel W Chan; Meredith M Regan; Jack Groskopf; Jonathan Chipman; Dattatraya H Patil; Simpa S Salami; Douglas S Scherr; Jacob Kagan; Sudhir Srivastava; Ian M Thompson; Javed Siddiqui; Jing Fan; Aron Y Joon; Leonidas E Bantis; Mark A Rubin; Arul M Chinnayian; John T Wei; Mohamed Bidair; Adam Kibel; Daniel W Lin; Yair Lotan; Alan Partin; Samir Taneja Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Artitaya Lophatananon; Matthew H V Byrne; Tristan Barrett; Anne Warren; Kenneth Muir; Ibifuro Dokubo; Fanos Georgiades; Mostafa Sheba; Lisa Bibby; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.638