Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26482553›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2015

Cost-Effectiveness of a Biopsy-Based 8-Protein Prostate Cancer Prognostic Assay to Optimize Treatment Decision Making in Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 Early Stage Prostate Cancer.

Joshua A Roth, Scott D Ramsey, Josh J Carlson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Joshua A RothHutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Scott D RamseyHutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Josh J CarlsonHutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA carlsojj@u.washington.edu.

Funding

UW Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Career Development Program K12 2014 2019K12HS022982 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SULLIVAN, SEAN D · 2014 to 2018
$3.8M
AHRQ HHS 1K12HS022982-01AHRQ HHS K12 HS022982
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients with Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 early stage prostate cancer receive invasive treatment but likely derive little or no benefit. A novel 8-protein prognostic assay generates a risk score at time of biopsy that is predictive of prostate cancer aggressiveness and can inform treatment decisions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using the assay to inform treatment decisions compared with usual care. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe developed a simulation model to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost outcomes for the 8-protein assay and usual care strategies. Risk classification outcomes, treatment distributions, costs, health state utilities, and mortality rates were derived from the assay's validation study and the peer-reviewed literature. Outcomes included incremental QALYs, costs, and cost-effectiveness ratios. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the most influential inputs and to explore joint uncertainty in outcomes, respectively.

resultsThe 8-protein assay strategy resulted in 0.04 more QALY and $700 less in costs compared with usual care (and thus was "dominant"). The cost-effectiveness of the assay strategy was most sensitive to the assay cost, the active surveillance health state utility, and the proportion of low-risk patients receiving active surveillance (vs. treatment) in usual care. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the assay strategy decreased cost and increased QALYs in 86.9% and 58.3% of simulations, respectively.

conclusionAssuming that ongoing prospective studies support the results of retrospective validation studies, the 8-protein prognostic assay strategy for prostate cancer is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to usual guideline-based care in biopsy Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 early stage prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBiopsyCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingHumansMaleModels, StatisticalPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsProteinsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRisk FactorsBiomarkers, TumorProteinsAssayCost-effectivenessEconomicProstate cancerProteomics

Identifiers

PMID26482553
PMCPMC4679086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.