PP33 Molecular Markers For The Detection Of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. (23rd December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 38(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: S51
• Page End: S51
• Publication Date: 2022-12-23
• Subjects: Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462322001751
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: It 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Sixty-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. Conclusions: Biomarker 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.