PP33 Molecular Markers For The Detection Of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
IntroductionIt is estimated that approximately 1.1 million cases of prostate cancer (PCa) are diagnosed in the world every year. In general, PCa is a slow-onset cancer and less than 10 percent of cases are detected in the metastatic phase. In order to identify patients at risk of suffering from clin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of technology assessment in health care 2022-12, Vol.38 (S1), p.S51-S51 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | S51 |
---|---|
container_issue | S1 |
container_start_page | S51 |
container_title | International journal of technology assessment in health care |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania García-Pérez, Lidia Infante-Ventura, Diego Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia de Armas-Castellano, Aythami Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María |
description | IntroductionIt is estimated that approximately 1.1 million cases of prostate cancer (PCa) are diagnosed in the world every year. In general, PCa is a slow-onset cancer and less than 10 percent of cases are detected in the metastatic phase. In order to identify patients at risk of suffering from clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), as well as to avoid unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a variety of molecular biomarker detection tests have been developed.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness of diagnostic tests based on biomarkers in blood or urine samples for the identification of men at risk of csPCa. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree model for the short term and a Markov model for the long term, both from the social and the National Health System perspectives. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsSixty-five studies were included with a total of 34,287 participants. The diagnostic tests analyzed were: PHI, Progensa® PCA3, SelectMDx, MyProstateScore, 4Kscore®, TMPRSS2: ERG, Stockholm3, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore and Proclarix®. All studies included biopsy as comparator. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests depended on the test itself and the threshold chosen, and ranged from 42 percent to 99 percent and from 13 percent to 87 percent, respectively. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the alternative that includes the biomarker, specifically the SelectMDx, led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6,640.21 EUR per QALY. The sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.ConclusionsBiomarker testing to select men at risk of csPCa who should undergo prostate biopsy can be a cost-effective strategy depending on its cost per determination and its sensitivity/specificity. The analyses carried out indicate that the SelectMDx biomarker is cost-effective at a cost of EUR 375 per determination. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266462322001751 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2756910867</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266462322001751</cupid><sourcerecordid>2756910867</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1571-55d9f89744cb48ed34b9c26f6ae95ccfe0d17b4eccd87f06a3056f1cdef66f123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UF1LwzAUDaLgnP4A3wI-V_PVpH2U6lTY2HDzuaTpzczs2pm0D_v3Zmzgg_h0OZyPezgI3VJyTwlVD0vCpBSSccZIxCk9QyMqFE0kF9k5Gh3o5MBfoqsQNlHDSU5G6H2x4BzPugbM0GiPZ9p_gQ940nm8-gT8BD2Y3nUtnltcNK51RjfNHi_dunU2grbHC9-FXveAC90a8NfowuomwM3pjtHH5HlVvCbT-ctb8ThNDE1jsTStc5vlSghTiQxqLqrcMGmlhjw1xgKpqaoEGFNnyhKpOUmlpaYGK-NlfIzujrk7330PEPpy0w2-jS9LplKZU5JJFVX0qDKxZfBgy513W-33JSXlYbryz3TRw08eva28q9fwG_2_6wfw229g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2756910867</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>PP33 Molecular Markers For The Detection Of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer</title><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><creator>del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania ; García-Pérez, Lidia ; Infante-Ventura, Diego ; Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu ; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia ; de Armas-Castellano, Aythami ; Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro ; del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María</creator><creatorcontrib>del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania ; García-Pérez, Lidia ; Infante-Ventura, Diego ; Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu ; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia ; de Armas-Castellano, Aythami ; Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro ; del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María</creatorcontrib><description>IntroductionIt is estimated that approximately 1.1 million cases of prostate cancer (PCa) are diagnosed in the world every year. In general, PCa is a slow-onset cancer and less than 10 percent of cases are detected in the metastatic phase. In order to identify patients at risk of suffering from clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), as well as to avoid unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a variety of molecular biomarker detection tests have been developed.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness of diagnostic tests based on biomarkers in blood or urine samples for the identification of men at risk of csPCa. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree model for the short term and a Markov model for the long term, both from the social and the National Health System perspectives. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsSixty-five studies were included with a total of 34,287 participants. The diagnostic tests analyzed were: PHI, Progensa® PCA3, SelectMDx, MyProstateScore, 4Kscore®, TMPRSS2: ERG, Stockholm3, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore and Proclarix®. All studies included biopsy as comparator. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests depended on the test itself and the threshold chosen, and ranged from 42 percent to 99 percent and from 13 percent to 87 percent, respectively. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the alternative that includes the biomarker, specifically the SelectMDx, led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6,640.21 EUR per QALY. The sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.ConclusionsBiomarker testing to select men at risk of csPCa who should undergo prostate biopsy can be a cost-effective strategy depending on its cost per determination and its sensitivity/specificity. The analyses carried out indicate that the SelectMDx biomarker is cost-effective at a cost of EUR 375 per determination.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462322001751</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Biomarkers ; Biopsy ; Clinical significance ; Cost analysis ; Decision analysis ; Decision trees ; Diagnostic systems ; Diagnostic tests ; Effectiveness ; Markov chains ; Metastases ; Poster Presentations ; Prostate cancer ; Risk ; Sensitivity analysis</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2022-12, Vol.38 (S1), p.S51-S51</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462322001751/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27923,27924,55627</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Pérez, Lidia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Infante-Ventura, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Armas-Castellano, Aythami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María</creatorcontrib><title>PP33 Molecular Markers For The Detection Of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><description>IntroductionIt is estimated that approximately 1.1 million cases of prostate cancer (PCa) are diagnosed in the world every year. In general, PCa is a slow-onset cancer and less than 10 percent of cases are detected in the metastatic phase. In order to identify patients at risk of suffering from clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), as well as to avoid unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a variety of molecular biomarker detection tests have been developed.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness of diagnostic tests based on biomarkers in blood or urine samples for the identification of men at risk of csPCa. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree model for the short term and a Markov model for the long term, both from the social and the National Health System perspectives. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsSixty-five studies were included with a total of 34,287 participants. The diagnostic tests analyzed were: PHI, Progensa® PCA3, SelectMDx, MyProstateScore, 4Kscore®, TMPRSS2: ERG, Stockholm3, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore and Proclarix®. All studies included biopsy as comparator. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests depended on the test itself and the threshold chosen, and ranged from 42 percent to 99 percent and from 13 percent to 87 percent, respectively. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the alternative that includes the biomarker, specifically the SelectMDx, led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6,640.21 EUR per QALY. The sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.ConclusionsBiomarker testing to select men at risk of csPCa who should undergo prostate biopsy can be a cost-effective strategy depending on its cost per determination and its sensitivity/specificity. The analyses carried out indicate that the SelectMDx biomarker is cost-effective at a cost of EUR 375 per determination.</description><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Clinical significance</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision trees</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Diagnostic tests</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Markov chains</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Poster Presentations</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UF1LwzAUDaLgnP4A3wI-V_PVpH2U6lTY2HDzuaTpzczs2pm0D_v3Zmzgg_h0OZyPezgI3VJyTwlVD0vCpBSSccZIxCk9QyMqFE0kF9k5Gh3o5MBfoqsQNlHDSU5G6H2x4BzPugbM0GiPZ9p_gQ940nm8-gT8BD2Y3nUtnltcNK51RjfNHi_dunU2grbHC9-FXveAC90a8NfowuomwM3pjtHH5HlVvCbT-ctb8ThNDE1jsTStc5vlSghTiQxqLqrcMGmlhjw1xgKpqaoEGFNnyhKpOUmlpaYGK-NlfIzujrk7330PEPpy0w2-jS9LplKZU5JJFVX0qDKxZfBgy513W-33JSXlYbryz3TRw08eva28q9fwG_2_6wfw229g</recordid><startdate>202212</startdate><enddate>202212</enddate><creator>del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania</creator><creator>García-Pérez, Lidia</creator><creator>Infante-Ventura, Diego</creator><creator>Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu</creator><creator>Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia</creator><creator>de Armas-Castellano, Aythami</creator><creator>Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro</creator><creator>del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202212</creationdate><title>PP33 Molecular Markers For The Detection Of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer</title><author>del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania ; García-Pérez, Lidia ; Infante-Ventura, Diego ; Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu ; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia ; de Armas-Castellano, Aythami ; Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro ; del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1571-55d9f89744cb48ed34b9c26f6ae95ccfe0d17b4eccd87f06a3056f1cdef66f123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Clinical significance</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision trees</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Diagnostic tests</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Markov chains</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Poster Presentations</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Pérez, Lidia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Infante-Ventura, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Armas-Castellano, Aythami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania</au><au>García-Pérez, Lidia</au><au>Infante-Ventura, Diego</au><au>Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu</au><au>Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Leticia</au><au>de Armas-Castellano, Aythami</au><au>Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro</au><au>del Mar Trujillo-Martín, María</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>PP33 Molecular Markers For The Detection Of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><date>2022-12</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>S51</spage><epage>S51</epage><pages>S51-S51</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>IntroductionIt is estimated that approximately 1.1 million cases of prostate cancer (PCa) are diagnosed in the world every year. In general, PCa is a slow-onset cancer and less than 10 percent of cases are detected in the metastatic phase. In order to identify patients at risk of suffering from clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), as well as to avoid unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, a variety of molecular biomarker detection tests have been developed.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness of diagnostic tests based on biomarkers in blood or urine samples for the identification of men at risk of csPCa. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision tree model for the short term and a Markov model for the long term, both from the social and the National Health System perspectives. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsSixty-five studies were included with a total of 34,287 participants. The diagnostic tests analyzed were: PHI, Progensa® PCA3, SelectMDx, MyProstateScore, 4Kscore®, TMPRSS2: ERG, Stockholm3, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore and Proclarix®. All studies included biopsy as comparator. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests depended on the test itself and the threshold chosen, and ranged from 42 percent to 99 percent and from 13 percent to 87 percent, respectively. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the alternative that includes the biomarker, specifically the SelectMDx, led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6,640.21 EUR per QALY. The sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.ConclusionsBiomarker testing to select men at risk of csPCa who should undergo prostate biopsy can be a cost-effective strategy depending on its cost per determination and its sensitivity/specificity. The analyses carried out indicate that the SelectMDx biomarker is cost-effective at a cost of EUR 375 per determination.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266462322001751</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4623 |
ispartof | International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2022-12, Vol.38 (S1), p.S51-S51 |
issn | 0266-4623 1471-6348 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2756910867 |
source | Cambridge Journals Online |
subjects | Biomarkers Biopsy Clinical significance Cost analysis Decision analysis Decision trees Diagnostic systems Diagnostic tests Effectiveness Markov chains Metastases Poster Presentations Prostate cancer Risk Sensitivity analysis |
title | PP33 Molecular Markers For The Detection Of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T16%3A34%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PP33%20Molecular%20Markers%20For%20The%20Detection%20Of%20Clinically%20Significant%20Prostate%20Cancer&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=del%20Pino-Sede%C3%B1o,%20Tasmania&rft.date=2022-12&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=S51&rft.epage=S51&rft.pages=S51-S51&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462322001751&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2756910867%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2756910867&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266462322001751&rfr_iscdi=true |