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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of technology assessment in health care 2022-12, Vol.38 (S1), p.S51-S51
Hauptverfasser: 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
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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