IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i4d10.1007_s40273-024-01463-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Home Urine Dipstick Screening for Bladder and Kidney Cancer in High-Risk Populations in England: A Microsimulation Study of Long-Term Impact and Cost-Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Olena Mandrik

    (The University of Sheffield)

  • Chloe Thomas

    (The University of Sheffield)

  • Edifofon Akpan

    (The University of Sheffield)

  • James W. F. Catto

    (Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield)

  • Jim Chilcott

    (The University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Background Testing high-risk populations for non-visible haematuria may enable earlier detection of bladder cancer, potentially decreasing mortality. This research aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of urine dipstick screening for bladder cancer in high-risk populations in England. Methods A microsimulation model developed in R software was calibrated to national incidence data by age, sex and stage, and validated against mortality data. Individual risk factors included age, sex, smoking status and factory employment. We evaluated three one-time screening scenarios: (1) current and former smokers of different ages within the 55–70 years range, (2) a mixed-age cohort of smokers aged 55–80 years and (3) individuals aged 65–79 years from high-risk regions. Probabilistic and scenario analyses evaluated uncertainty. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and compared with the standard £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold using payer’s perspective and 2022 year of evaluation with 3.5% discounting for both costs and effects. Results Screening all current and former smokers (scenario 1) and both mixed-age cohorts (scenarios 2 and 3) was not cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000/QALY. Screening at age 58 years had a 33% probability of being cost-effective at £20,000/QALY threshold and a 64% probability at £30,000/QALY threshold. Screening current and former smoking men aged 58 and 60 years was cost-effective, with ICERs of £18,181 and £18,425 per QALY, respectively. Scenario results demonstrated the high impact of assumptions on lead time, diagnostic pathway, and screening efficacy on predictions. Conclusions Screening smoking men aged 58 or 60 years for bladder cancer using urine dipstick tests may be cost-effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Olena Mandrik & Chloe Thomas & Edifofon Akpan & James W. F. Catto & Jim Chilcott, 2025. "Home Urine Dipstick Screening for Bladder and Kidney Cancer in High-Risk Populations in England: A Microsimulation Study of Long-Term Impact and Cost-Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 441-452, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01463-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01463-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01463-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-024-01463-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01463-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.