1
|
Degeling K, Pereira-Salgado A, Corcoran NM, Boutros PC, Kuhn P, IJzerman MJ. Health Economic Evidence for Liquid- and Tissue-based Molecular Tests that Inform Decisions on Prostate Biopsies and Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. EUR UROL SUPPL 2021; 27:77-87. [PMID: 34337517 PMCID: PMC8317795 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
CONTEXT Several liquid- and tissue-based biomarker tests (LTBTs) are available to inform the need for prostate biopsies and treatment of localised prostate cancer (PCa) through risk stratification, but translation into routine practice requires evidence of their clinical utility and economic impact. OBJECTIVE To review and summarise the health economic evidence on the ability of LTBTs to inform decisions on prostate biopsies and treatment of localised PCa through risk stratification. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic search was performed in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Technology Assessment, and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation databases. Eligible publications were those presenting health economic evaluations of an LTBT to select individuals for biopsy or risk-stratify PCa patients for treatment. Data on the study objectives, context, methodology, clinical utility, and outcomes were extracted and summarised. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Of the 22 studies included, 14 were focused on test-informed biopsies and eight on treatment selection. Most studies performed cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 7), followed by costing (n = 4) or budget impact analyses (n = 3). Most (18 of 22) studies concluded that biomarker tests could decrease health care costs or would be cost-effective. However, downstream consequences and long-term outcomes were typically not included in studies that evaluated LTBT to inform biopsies. Long-term effectiveness was modelled by linking evidence from different sources instead of using data from prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS Although studies concluded that LTBTs would probably be cost-saving or -effective, the strength of this evidence is disputable because of concerns around the validity and transparency of the assumptions made. This warrants prospective interventional trials to inform health economic analyses to ensure collection of direct evidence of clinical outcomes based on LTBT use. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed studies that evaluated whether blood, urine, and tissue tests can reduce the health and economic burden of prostate cancer. Results indicate that these tests could be cost-effective, but clinical studies of long-term outcomes are needed to confirm the findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koen Degeling
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Amanda Pereira-Salgado
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Niall M. Corcoran
- Department of Urology, Frankston Hospital, Frankston, Australia
- Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Division of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Paul C. Boutros
- Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Institute for Precision Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Departments of Human Genetics and Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Peter Kuhn
- USC Michelson Center for Convergent Biosciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Biological Sciences, Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Maarten J. IJzerman
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Cancer Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hueting TA, Cornel EB, Korthorst RA, Pleijhuis RG, Somford DM, van Basten JPA, van der Palen JAM, Koffijberg H. Optimizing the risk threshold of lymph node involvement for performing extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Urol Oncol 2020; 39:72.e7-72.e14. [PMID: 33121913 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.09.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2020] [Revised: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) may be omitted in prostate cancer (CaP) patients with a low predicted risk of lymph node involvement (LNI). The aim of the current study was to quantify the cost-effectiveness of using different risk thresholds for predicted LNI in CaP patients to inform decision making on omitting ePLND. METHODS Five different thresholds (2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 100%) used in practice for performing ePLND were compared using a decision analytic cohort model with the 100% threshold (i.e., no ePLND) as reference. Compared outcomes consisted of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. Baseline characteristics for the hypothetical cohort were based on an actual Dutch patient cohort containing 925 patients who underwent ePLND with risks of LNI predicted by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center web-calculator. The best strategy was selected based on the incremental cost effectiveness ratio when applying a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with Monte Carlo simulation to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS Costs and health outcomes were lowest (€4,858 and 6.04 QALYs) for the 100% threshold, and highest (€10,939 and 6.21 QALYs) for the 2% threshold, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the 2%, 5%, 10%, and 20% threshold compared with the first threshold above (i.e., 5%, 10%, 20%, and 100%) were €189,222/QALY, €130,689/QALY, €51,920/QALY, and €23,187/QALY respectively. Applying a WTP threshold of €20.000 the probabilities for the 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 100% threshold strategies being cost-effective were 0.0%, 0.3%, 4.9%, 30.3%, and 64.5% respectively. CONCLUSION Applying a WTP threshold of €20.000, completely omitting ePLND in CaP patients is cost-effective compared to other risk-based strategies. However, applying a 20% threshold for probable LNI to the Briganti 2012 nomogram or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center web-calculator, may be a feasible alternative, in particular when higher WTP values are considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom A Hueting
- Department of Health Technology & Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede.
| | - Erik B Cornel
- Department of urology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Hengelo
| | | | - Rick G Pleijhuis
- Department of internal medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | | | | | - Job A M van der Palen
- Faculty of behavioural, management and social sciences, research methodology, measurement and data analysis, University of Twente, Enschede. Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede
| | - Hendrik Koffijberg
- Department of Health Technology & Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Decision Support Systems in Prostate Cancer Treatment: An Overview. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2019; 2019:4961768. [PMID: 31281840 PMCID: PMC6590598 DOI: 10.1155/2019/4961768] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2018] [Revised: 04/02/2019] [Accepted: 05/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Background A multifactorial decision support system (mDSS) is a tool designed to improve the clinical decision-making process, while using clinical inputs for an individual patient to generate case-specific advice. The study provides an overview of the literature to analyze current available mDSS focused on prostate cancer (PCa), in order to better understand the availability of decision support tools as well as where the current literature is lacking. Methods We performed a MEDLINE literature search in July 2018. We divided the included studies into different sections: diagnostic, which aids in detection or staging of PCa; treatment, supporting the decision between treatment modalities; and patient, which focusses on informing the patient. We manually screened and excluded studies that did not contain an mDSS concerning prostate cancer and study proposals. Results Our search resulted in twelve diagnostic mDSS; six treatment mDSS; two patient mDSS; and eight papers that could improve mDSS. Conclusions Diagnosis mDSS is well represented in the literature as well as treatment mDSS considering external-beam radiotherapy; however, there is a lack of mDSS for other treatment modalities. The development of patient decision aids is a new field of research, and few successes have been made for PCa patients. These tools can improve personalized medicine but need to overcome a number of difficulties to be successful and require more research.
Collapse
|
4
|
Lobo JM, Trifiletti DM, Sturz VN, Dicker AP, Buerki C, Davicioni E, Cooperberg MR, Karnes RJ, Jenkins RB, Den RB, Showalter TN. Cost-effectiveness of the Decipher Genomic Classifier to Guide Individualized Decisions for Early Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:e299-e309. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.08.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2015] [Revised: 08/01/2016] [Accepted: 08/05/2016] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
|
5
|
Kim DD, Wilkinson CL, Pope EF, Chambers JD, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. The influence of time horizon on results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2017; 17:615-623. [DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2017.1331432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- David D. Kim
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Colby L. Wilkinson
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Elle F. Pope
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - James D. Chambers
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Joshua T. Cohen
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Peter J. Neumann
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|