IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0202796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An early analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic classifier for risk stratification of haematuria patients (DCRSHP) compared to flexible cystoscopy in the diagnosis of bladder cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew J Sutton
  • John V Lamont
  • R Mark Evans
  • Kate Williamson
  • Declan O’Rourke
  • Brian Duggan
  • Gurdeep S Sagoo
  • Cherith N Reid
  • Mark W Ruddock

Abstract

Background: Urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) is the 5th most common cancer in Western societies. The most common symptom of UBC is haematuria. Cystoscopy the gold standard for UBC detection, allows direct observation of the bladder, but is expensive, invasive, and uncomfortable. This study examines whether an alternative new urine-based diagnostic test, the DCRSHP, is cost-effective as a triage diagnostic tool compared to flexible cystoscopy in the diagnosis of UBC in haematuria patients. Methods: A model-based cost-utility analysis using cost per quality adjusted life year and life year gained, parameterised with secondary data sources. Results: If the DCRSHP is targeted at haematuria patients at lower risk of having bladder cancer e.g. younger patients, non-smokers, then it can be priced as high as £620, and be both effective and cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis found that DCRSHP is approximately 80% likely to be cost-effective across all willingness to pay values (for a QALY) and prevalence estimates. Conclusion: This analysis shows the potential for a non-invasive test to be added to the diagnostic pathway for haematuria patients suspected of having UBC. If the DCRSHP is applied targeting haematuria patients at low risk of UBC, then it has the potential to be both effective and cost-effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew J Sutton & John V Lamont & R Mark Evans & Kate Williamson & Declan O’Rourke & Brian Duggan & Gurdeep S Sagoo & Cherith N Reid & Mark W Ruddock, 2018. "An early analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a diagnostic classifier for risk stratification of haematuria patients (DCRSHP) compared to flexible cystoscopy in the diagnosis of bladder cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202796
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202796
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202796&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0202796?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan, 2014. "Estimating Multiparameter Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information from a Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 311-326, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emanuele Borgonovo & Gordon B. Hazen & Elmar Plischke, 2016. "A Common Rationale for Global Sensitivity Measures and Their Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1871-1895, October.
    2. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo & Curtis L. Smith, 2018. "On the Relationship between Safety and Decision Significance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1541-1558, August.
    3. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo, 2017. "Deciding with Thresholds: Importance Measures and Value of Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1828-1848, October.
    4. Haag, Fridolin & Chennu, Arjun, 2023. "Assessing whether decisions are more sensitive to preference or prediction uncertainty with a value of information approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    5. Daniel W. Gladish & Daniel E. Pagendam & Luk J. M. Peeters & Petra M. Kuhnert & Jai Vaze, 2018. "Emulation Engines: Choice and Quantification of Uncertainty for Complex Hydrological Models," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 23(1), pages 39-62, March.
    6. Andrew John Sutton & Gurdeep S Sagoo & Leon Jackson & Mike Fisher & Geoffrey Hamilton-Fairley & Andrea Murray & Adam Hill, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of a new autoantibody test added to Computed Tomography (CT) compared to CT surveillance alone in the diagnosis of lung cancer amongst patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2018. "Efficient Monte Carlo Estimation of the Expected Value of Sample Information Using Moment Matching," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(2), pages 163-173, February.
    8. Nasuh C. Buyukkaramikli & Peter Wigfield & Men Thi Hoang, 2021. "A MEA is a MEA is a MEA? Sequential decision making and the impact of different managed entry agreements at the manufacturer and payer level, using a case study for an oncology drug in England," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 51-73, February.
    9. Straub, Daniel & Ehre, Max & Papaioannou, Iason, 2022. "Decision-theoretic reliability sensitivity," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    10. Dutta, Geetartha & Mukerji, Tapan & Eidsvik, Jo, 2019. "Value of information analysis for subsurface energy resources applications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Hazen, Gordon B. & Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Plischke, Elmar, 2021. "Probabilistic sensitivity measures as information value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(2), pages 595-610.
    12. Whitney, Cory W. & Tabuti, John R.S. & Hensel, Oliver & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Gebauer, Jens & Luedeling, Eike, 2017. "Homegardens and the future of food and nutrition security in southwest Uganda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 133-144.
    13. Daniel W. Gladish & Ross Darnell & Peter J. Thorburn & Bhakti Haldankar, 2019. "Emulated Multivariate Global Sensitivity Analysis for Complex Computer Models Applied to Agricultural Simulators," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 24(1), pages 130-153, March.
    14. David Glynn & John Giardina & Julia Hatamyar & Ankur Pandya & Marta Soares & Noemi Kreif, 2024. "Integrating decision modeling and machine learning to inform treatment stratification," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1772-1792, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.