Cancer medicine · 2023
Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mohammadi Tima, Guh Daphne P, Tam Alexander C T, Pataky Reka E, Black Peter C, So Alan, Lynd Larry D, Zhang Wei, Conklin Annalijn I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The current prostate cancer (PCa) screening standard of care (SOC) leads to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment because decisions are guided by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, which have low specificity in the gray zone (3-10 ng/mL). New risk assessment tools (RATs) aim to improve biopsy decision-making. We constructed a modeling framework to assess new RATs in men with gray zone PSA from the British Columbia healthcare system's perspective.
METHODS: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a new RAT used in biopsy-naïve men aged 50+ with a PSA of 3-10 ng/mL using a time-dependent state-transition model. The model was informed by engaging patient partners and using linked administrative health data, supplemented with published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the probability of the RAT being cost-effective were calculated. Probabilistic analysis was used to assess parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: In the base case, a RAT based on an existing biomarker's characteristics was a dominant strategy associated with a cost savings of $44 and a quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain of 0.00253 over 18 years of follow-up. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability that using a RAT is cost-effective relative to the SOC was 73%. Outcomes were sensitive to RAT costs and accuracy, especially the detection rate of high-grade PCa. Results were also impacted by PCa prevalence and assumptions about undetected PCa survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that a more accurate RAT to guide biopsy can be cost-effective. Our proposed general model can be used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of any novel RAT.
METHODS: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a new RAT used in biopsy-naïve men aged 50+ with a PSA of 3-10 ng/mL using a time-dependent state-transition model. The model was informed by engaging patient partners and using linked administrative health data, supplemented with published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the probability of the RAT being cost-effective were calculated. Probabilistic analysis was used to assess parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: In the base case, a RAT based on an existing biomarker's characteristics was a dominant strategy associated with a cost savings of $44 and a quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain of 0.00253 over 18 years of follow-up. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability that using a RAT is cost-effective relative to the SOC was 73%. Outcomes were sensitive to RAT costs and accuracy, especially the detection rate of high-grade PCa. Results were also impacted by PCa prevalence and assumptions about undetected PCa survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that a more accurate RAT to guide biopsy can be cost-effective. Our proposed general model can be used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of any novel RAT.