Cancer · 2025
Cost-effectiveness of office-based, magnetic resonance imaging-guided transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: An economic analysis of the PREVENT trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Huang Mitchell M, Driscoll Conor B, Handa Nicole, Wahba B Malik, Laviana Aaron A, Patel Hiten D, Jalali Ali, Hu Jim C, Schaeffer Edward M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: As antimicrobial resistance increases, safer alternative approaches to prostate biopsy are needed. PREVENT was a multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial comparing transperineal (TP) biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal (TR) biopsy with targeted prophylaxis. The authors conducted a secondary cost-effectiveness analysis of PREVENT.
METHODS: The authors designed a Markov model with a simulated cohort of 1000 biopsied men. They assessed the short-term cost-effectiveness over a 2-week period, comparing relative costs in US dollars and utility measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The strategies they compared were office-based, magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy using two approaches: (1) TP without antibiotics; or (2) TR with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis. Analysis was from a health care payer perspective using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 5000 Monte Carlo simulations.
RESULTS: Compared to TR, TP was dominant, offering lower cost and higher utility per patient. This finding was robust to sensitivity analyses with TP having >89% probability of cost-effectiveness regardless of WTP threshold. TP remained dominant when real-world infection rates were used. TP biopsy needed to prevent >0.5% infections compared to TR to maintain cost-effectiveness. Per 1000 patients, TP biopsy prevented 16 infections, and the additional cost to prevent a single infection was $3.18/patient.
CONCLUSIONS: In this model, TP biopsy was more cost-effective than TR from a health care payer perspective. In the setting of increasing concerns about the risk of infection from traditional TR biopsy, these findings suggest that office-based TP biopsy is a more cost-effective population-level alternative.
METHODS: The authors designed a Markov model with a simulated cohort of 1000 biopsied men. They assessed the short-term cost-effectiveness over a 2-week period, comparing relative costs in US dollars and utility measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The strategies they compared were office-based, magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy using two approaches: (1) TP without antibiotics; or (2) TR with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis. Analysis was from a health care payer perspective using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 5000 Monte Carlo simulations.
RESULTS: Compared to TR, TP was dominant, offering lower cost and higher utility per patient. This finding was robust to sensitivity analyses with TP having >89% probability of cost-effectiveness regardless of WTP threshold. TP remained dominant when real-world infection rates were used. TP biopsy needed to prevent >0.5% infections compared to TR to maintain cost-effectiveness. Per 1000 patients, TP biopsy prevented 16 infections, and the additional cost to prevent a single infection was $3.18/patient.
CONCLUSIONS: In this model, TP biopsy was more cost-effective than TR from a health care payer perspective. In the setting of increasing concerns about the risk of infection from traditional TR biopsy, these findings suggest that office-based TP biopsy is a more cost-effective population-level alternative.