Critical Appraisal of Decision Models Used for the Economic Evaluation of Bladder Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics
ISSN: 1179-2027
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoeconomics
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9212404
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
accepted:
13
02
2023
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
9
3
2023
entrez:
8
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Bladder cancer is common among current and former smokers. High bladder cancer mortality may be decreased through early diagnosis and screening. The aim of this study was to appraise decision models used for the economic evaluation of bladder cancer screening and diagnosis, and to summarise the main outcomes of these models. MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Web of Science databases was systematically searched from January 2006 to May 2022 for modelling studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of bladder cancer screening and diagnostic interventions. Articles were appraised according to Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome (PICO) characteristics, modelling methods, model structures and data sources. The quality of the studies was also appraised using the Philips checklist by two independent reviewers. Searches identified 3082 potentially relevant studies, which resulted in 18 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Four of these articles were on bladder cancer screening, and the remaining 14 were diagnostic or surveillance interventions. Two of the four screening models were individual-level simulations. All screening models (n = 4, with three on a high-risk population and one on a general population) concluded that screening is either cost saving or cost effective with cost-effectiveness ratios lower than $53,000/life-years saved. Disease prevalence was a strong determinant of cost effectiveness. Diagnostic models (n = 14) assessed multiple interventions; white light cystoscopy was the most common intervention and was considered cost effective in all studies (n = 4). Screening models relied largely on published evidence generalised from other countries and did not report the validation of their predictions to external data. Almost all diagnostic models (n = 13 out of 14) had a time horizon of 5 years or less and most of the models (n = 11) did not incorporate health-related utilities. In both screening and diagnostic models, epidemiological inputs were based on expert elicitation, assumptions or international evidence of uncertain generalisability. In modelling disease, seven models did not use a standard classification system to define cancer states, others used risk-based, numerical or a Tumour, Node, Metastasis classification. Despite including certain components of disease onset or progression, no models included a complete and coherent model of the natural history of bladder cancer (i.e. simulating the progression of asymptomatic primary bladder cancer from cancer onset, i.e. in the absence of treatment). The variation in natural history model structures and the lack of data for model parameterisation suggest that research in bladder cancer early detection and screening is at an early stage of development. Appropriate characterisation and analysis of uncertainty in bladder cancer models should be considered a priority.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Bladder cancer is common among current and former smokers. High bladder cancer mortality may be decreased through early diagnosis and screening. The aim of this study was to appraise decision models used for the economic evaluation of bladder cancer screening and diagnosis, and to summarise the main outcomes of these models.
METHODS
MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Web of Science databases was systematically searched from January 2006 to May 2022 for modelling studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of bladder cancer screening and diagnostic interventions. Articles were appraised according to Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome (PICO) characteristics, modelling methods, model structures and data sources. The quality of the studies was also appraised using the Philips checklist by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Searches identified 3082 potentially relevant studies, which resulted in 18 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Four of these articles were on bladder cancer screening, and the remaining 14 were diagnostic or surveillance interventions. Two of the four screening models were individual-level simulations. All screening models (n = 4, with three on a high-risk population and one on a general population) concluded that screening is either cost saving or cost effective with cost-effectiveness ratios lower than $53,000/life-years saved. Disease prevalence was a strong determinant of cost effectiveness. Diagnostic models (n = 14) assessed multiple interventions; white light cystoscopy was the most common intervention and was considered cost effective in all studies (n = 4). Screening models relied largely on published evidence generalised from other countries and did not report the validation of their predictions to external data. Almost all diagnostic models (n = 13 out of 14) had a time horizon of 5 years or less and most of the models (n = 11) did not incorporate health-related utilities. In both screening and diagnostic models, epidemiological inputs were based on expert elicitation, assumptions or international evidence of uncertain generalisability. In modelling disease, seven models did not use a standard classification system to define cancer states, others used risk-based, numerical or a Tumour, Node, Metastasis classification. Despite including certain components of disease onset or progression, no models included a complete and coherent model of the natural history of bladder cancer (i.e. simulating the progression of asymptomatic primary bladder cancer from cancer onset, i.e. in the absence of treatment).
CONCLUSIONS
The variation in natural history model structures and the lack of data for model parameterisation suggest that research in bladder cancer early detection and screening is at an early stage of development. Appropriate characterisation and analysis of uncertainty in bladder cancer models should be considered a priority.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36890355
doi: 10.1007/s40273-023-01256-9
pii: 10.1007/s40273-023-01256-9
pmc: PMC10548889
mid: NIHMS1933752
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
633-650Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 21;15(10):e0239338
pubmed: 33085669
Can Urol Assoc J. 2017 Jun;11(6):173-181
pubmed: 28652875
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2007 Dec;7(6):627-32
pubmed: 20528324
Med Sci (Basel). 2020 Mar 13;8(1):
pubmed: 32183076
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 01;179(10):1352-1362
pubmed: 31355874
Eur Urol. 2016 Sep;70(3):458-66
pubmed: 26149669
Value Health. 2009 Jun;12(4):409-18
pubmed: 19900249
Health Econ. 2006 Dec;15(12):1295-310
pubmed: 16941543
BJU Int. 2018 Feb;121(2):176-183
pubmed: 28921833
Value Health. 2021 Apr;24(4):463-472
pubmed: 33840423
World J Urol. 2019 Jan;37(1):31-40
pubmed: 30259123
Eur Urol. 2020 May;77(5):583-598
pubmed: 31791622
Int J Urol. 2018 Mar;25(3):212-218
pubmed: 29247553
J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Oct;96(4):356-61
pubmed: 18974813
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Dec 18;17(1):775
pubmed: 29254504
Med Decis Making. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(4):675-92
pubmed: 21653805
BJU Int. 2009 Jul;104(1):41-7
pubmed: 19500328
Urol Oncol. 2006 Jul-Aug;24(4):338-43
pubmed: 16818188
Lancet. 2016 Dec 3;388(10061):2796-2810
pubmed: 27345655
Med Decis Making. 2018 May;38(4):520-530
pubmed: 29577814
Clin Exp Nephrol. 2022 May;26(5):398-412
pubmed: 35000032
BJU Int. 2016 Jun;117(6B):E102-13
pubmed: 26305667
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Dec;1(9):1282-90
pubmed: 26448641
Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Feb;8(1):5-11
pubmed: 30976562
Cancer Med. 2019 Dec;8(18):7846-7858
pubmed: 31568702
BJU Int. 2020 Feb;125(2):270-275
pubmed: 31310696
BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):744-753
pubmed: 29727910
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jan 19;103(2):117-28
pubmed: 21228314
Front Public Health. 2021 Jan 08;8:612410
pubmed: 33490024
Value Health. 2018 Jul;21(7):858-873
pubmed: 30005759
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 23;13(8):e0202796
pubmed: 30138462
Eur Urol. 2006 Mar;49(3):466-5; discussion 475-7
pubmed: 16442208
Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 18;8(1):1129
pubmed: 29348548
Eur Urol. 2013 Jun;63(6):1049-58
pubmed: 23313034
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Jun;10(18):iii-iv, xi-259
pubmed: 16729917
Urology. 2015 Feb;85(2):381-6
pubmed: 25623694
Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 23;8(59):100648-100656
pubmed: 29246009
Vaccine. 2006 Aug 31;24 Suppl 3:S3/164-70
pubmed: 16950004
Can J Urol. 2013 Apr;20(2):6682-9
pubmed: 23587507
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Sep;8(36):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158
pubmed: 15361314
Future Oncol. 2016;12(8):1025-38
pubmed: 26975197
World J Urol. 2019 Oct;37(10):2059-2065
pubmed: 30446799
J Cancer Policy. 2022 Jun;32:100326
pubmed: 35560269
BJU Int. 2018 Sep;122(3):434-440
pubmed: 29603871
Haematologica. 2018 Nov;103(11):1756-1757
pubmed: 30381415
Value Health. 2016 Jul-Aug;19(5):631-8
pubmed: 27565280
Eur Urol. 2018 Dec;74(6):784-795
pubmed: 30268659
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
AMA J Ethics. 2021 Aug 1;23(8):E639-647
pubmed: 34459732
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jun 1;177(6):800-807
pubmed: 28418451
Cancer. 2009 Dec 1;115(23):5450-9
pubmed: 19685529
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jan;14(4):1-331, iii-iv
pubmed: 20082749
Cancer. 2006 Sep 1;107(5):982-90
pubmed: 16862567
Eur Urol. 2005 Jun;47(6):736-48
pubmed: 15925067
World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):1895-1904
pubmed: 31676912
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Nov;32(11):1093-104
pubmed: 25056838