View Item 

Show simple item record

Cost‐effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer
dc.contributor.authorBarnett, Christine L.
dc.contributor.authorDavenport, Matthew S.
dc.contributor.authorMontgomery, Jeffrey S.
dc.contributor.authorWei, John T.
dc.contributor.authorMontie, James E.
dc.contributor.authorDenton, Brian T.
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-13T15:47:12Z
dc.date.available2019-09-04T20:15:39Zen
dc.date.issued2018-07
dc.identifier.citationBarnett, Christine L.; Davenport, Matthew S.; Montgomery, Jeffrey S.; Wei, John T.; Montie, James E.; Denton, Brian T. (2018). "Cost‐effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer." BJU International 122(1): 50-58.
dc.identifier.issn1464-4096
dc.identifier.issn1464-410X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/144625
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.othercost‐effectiveness analysis
dc.subject.otherbiopsy
dc.subject.other#pcsm
dc.subject.otherMarkov model
dc.subject.othermagnetic resonance imaging
dc.subject.other#ProstateCancer
dc.titleCost‐effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialties
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144625/1/bju14151_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144625/2/bju14151.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bju.14151
dc.identifier.sourceBJU International
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhmed H, Bosaily A, Brown L et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi‐parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815 – 22
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoehl KK, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JAV, Catalona WJ. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long‐term results. J Urol 2004; 172: 910 – 4
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArias E. United States Life Tables, 2006. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1484 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGulati R, Inoue L, Katcher J, Hazelton W, Etzioni R. Calibrating disease progression models using population data: a critical precursor to policy development in cancer control. Biostatistics 2010; 11: 707 – 19
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746 – 57
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrey AD, Chana MS, Popert R, Wolfe K, Liyanage SH, Acher PL. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI‐RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015; 115: 728 – 35
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAizer AA, Gu X, Chen MH et al. Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low‐risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015; 13: 61 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoth J, Gulati R, Gore J, Cooperberg M, Etzioni R. Economic analysis of prostate‐specific antigen screening and selective treatment strategies. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2: 890 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeijnsdijk EAM, Wever EM, Auvinen A et al. Quality‐of‐life effects of prostate‐specific antigen screening. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 595 – 605
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLi CK, Tong BC, You JH. Cost‐effectiveness of culture‐guided antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of infections after prostate biopsy. Int J Infect Dis 2016; 43: 7 – 12
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrann VR, Patel PR, Jacobson JS et al. Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2‐affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 125: 837 – 47
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShepard DS. Time Preference. In Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC eds, Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996: 214 – 46
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShepard DS. Reporting Cost‐Effectiveness Studies and Results. In Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC eds, Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996: 276 – 301
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost‐effectiveness — the curious resilience of the $50,000‐per‐QALY threshold. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 796 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWillis SR, Ahmed HU, Moore CM et al. Multiparametric MRI followed by targeted prostate biopsy for men with suspected prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e004895
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JP. Cost‐effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR‐guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound–guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 430 – 6
dc.identifier.citedreferencePahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, Ziang L, Griswold MA, Gulani V. Cost‐effectiveness of MR imaging‐guided strategies for detection of prostate cancer in biopsy‐naïve men. Radiology 2017; 285: 157 – 66
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFaria R, Soares MO, Spackman E et al. Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a cost‐effectiveness analysis based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). Eur Urol 2018; 73: 23 – 30
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K et al. Magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion supported transperineal prostate biopsy using the Ginsburg protocol: technique, learning points, and biopsy results. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 332 – 40
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlibhai SM, Naglie G, Nam R, Trachtenberg J, Krahn MD. Do older men benefit from curative therapy of localized prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3318 – 27
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods for Technology Appraisal, 2013. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed October 2017.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al. Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI‐RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists.Radiology 2016; 280: 793 – 804
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamdy F, Donovan J, Lane J et al. 10‐year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415 – 24
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAdibi M, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Cost‐effectiveness of standard vs intensive antibiotic regimens for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)‐guided prostate biopsy prophylaxis. BJU Int 2012; 110: E86 – 91
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMariotto A, Yabroff K, Shao Y, Feuer E, Brown M. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1 – 12
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMoyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 120
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWelch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate‐specific antigen screening: 1986–2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1325 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGonzalez C, Averch T, Boyd L. AUA/SUNA White Paper on the Incidence, Prevention and Treatment of Complications Related to Prostate Needle Biopsy. AUA White Paper, 2012.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow‐up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027 – 35
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSiddiqui MM, Rais‐Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound‐guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeng X, Rosenkrantz A, Mendhiratta N et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI‐ultrasound fusion–targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 512 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOberlin D, Casalino D, Miller F et al. Diagnostic value of guided biopsies: fusion and cognitive‐registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate. Urology 2016; 92: 75 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSiddiqui M, George A, Rubin R et al. Efficiency of prostate cancer diagnosis by MR/ultrasound fusion‐guided biopsy vs standard extended‐sextant biopsy for MR‐visible lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 108: djw039.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol 2013; 190: 419 – 26
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarnett CL, Tomlins SA, Underwood DJ et al. Two‐stage biomarker protocols for early detection of prostate cancer. Med Decis Making 2017; 37: 815 – 26
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 291: 2713 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHeijnsdijk EAM, de Carvalho TM, Auvinen A et al. Cost‐effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107: dju366.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaas GP, Delongchamps NB, Jones RF et al. Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1484 – 9
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1019 – 24
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER‐Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830 – 4
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSavage CJ, Lilja H, Cronin AM, Ulmert D, Vickers AJ. Empirical estimates of the lead time distribution for prostate cancer based on two independent representative cohorts of men not subject to prostate‐specific antigen screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 1201 – 7
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMerdan S, Womble PR, Miller DC et al. Toward better use of bone scans among men with early‐stage prostate cancer. Urology 2014; 84: 793 – 8
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRisko R, Merdan S, Womble PR et al. Clinical predictors and recommendations for staging computed tomography scan among men with prostate cancer. Urology 2014; 84: 1329 – 34
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiu J, Womble PR, Merdan S, Miller DC, Montie JE, Denton BT. Factors influencing selection of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Urology 2015; 86: 901 – 5
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
bju14151_am.pdf
Size:
253.4KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
bju14151.pdf
Size:
265.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.