ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021
Alternating Cystoscopy with Bladder EpiCheck
Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: time for a de-escalation of treatment and aftercare].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Article
- The Development of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Tools in Bladder Cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBladder cancer surveillance is invasive, intensive and costly. Patients with low grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are at high risk of recurrence.
objectiveThe objective of this model is to compare the cost of a strategy to alternate surveillance with cystoscopy and a urine marker, Bladder EpiCheck, to standard surveillance.
methodsA decision tree model was built using TreeAge Pro Healthcare to compare standard surveillance (Standard) with a modified surveillance incorporating Bladder EpiCheck. The model was based on 2 years of surveillance. Outcomes were obtained from literature. Costs were obtained from US and 9 European countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsThe efficacy of the model was equivalent in terms of recurrence for each arm with median recurrence rate of 22%. When setting marker price at 200 local currency, the marker arm was less expensive in the USA, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Austria and UK by 154€ to 329£ per patient, for a 2-year period. Cost was higher in France, Spain, and Germany by 33-103€. Cost parity was achieved with marker price between 148€ and $421. Marker cost and specificity have the greatest impact on the overall model cost.
conclusionsA strategy alternating the urine marker Bladder EpiCheck with cystoscopy in the surveillance of patients with low grade intermediate risk bladder cancer is cost equivalent in the US and European countries when the marker is priced 148€ -$421, as a result of the marker's high specificity (86%). Prospective studies will be necessary to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.