IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i2p198-214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Surveillance Strategies for Low-Risk Bladder Cancer Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan Zhang
  • Brian T. Denton
  • Matthew E. Nielsen

Abstract

Objective . Low-grade noninvasive disease comprises approximately half of incident bladder cancer cases. These lesions have exceedingly low rates of progression to aggressive, muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and there is salient discordance with regard to management recommendations for these patients between the principal clinical practice guidelines. In this context, we compare the international guidelines with alternative surveillance strategies for low-risk bladder cancer patients. Methods . We used a partially observable Markov model based on states that defined patient risk levels associated with recurrence and progression of bladder cancer. The model also included states defining the effects of treatment, death from bladder cancer, and all other-cause mortality. Simulation was done to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), expected lifelong progression probability, and lifetime number of cystoscopies. Results . We compared current international guidelines and additional proposed surveillance strategies on the basis of QALYs. We conducted a bicriteria analysis to compare expected lifelong progression rate v. the number of cystoscopies. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the influence of model parameters, including a patient’s disutility associated with cystoscopy, bladder cancer mortality, and all other-cause mortality. Conclusions . Age and comorbidity significantly affect the optimal surveillance strategy. Results suggest that younger patients should be screened more intensively than older patients, and patients having comorbidity should be screened less intensively.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan Zhang & Brian T. Denton & Matthew E. Nielsen, 2013. "Comparison of Surveillance Strategies for Low-Risk Bladder Cancer Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(2), pages 198-214, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:2:p:198-214
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12465353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12465353
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12465353?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
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:2:p:198-214. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.