Should We Screen for Bladder Cancer in a High Risk Population: A Cost per Life-Year Saved Analysis? Yair Lotan, Robert S. Svatek, Arthur I. Sagalowsky.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Helical CT Screening for Lung Cancer at Advanced Radiology Consultants
Advertisements

Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Tract
The Role of Urine cytology in the investigation of Haematuria? B Barrass Audit Meeting 17 th May 2006.
PROSTATE CANCER Dr Samad Zare Assistant Proffesor of Urology Shaheed Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences.
BME 1300 Problem 1 Newstetter Group Haval Amedi Mollie Bryan Eric Flynn Peymaun Ghafouri-Kia Ryan Gleber Walter Kim Chelsea Proffitt Laini Whitton.
CHEMOTHERAPY AND BLADDER CANCER Walter Stadler, MD, FACP University of Chicago.
Goldstraw et al. J Thorac Oncol 2007 Why should we want to screen? Survival (years)
The long term outcome of high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. F Thomas, N Rubin, J Goepel, D Rosario, MF Abbod, JWF Catto. Academic unit of Urology,
Advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder, What is next? Saleh A. Binsaleh.
Asymptomatic bacteriuria in the elderly Dr Grace Sluga Consultant Microbiologist.
SCREENING FOR DISEASE Nigel Paneth. THREE KEY MEASURES OF VALIDITY 1.SENSITIVITY 2.SPECIFICITY 3.PREDICTIVE VALUE.
59 years old man Hx of stomach adenocarcinoma 20 years ago Hx of chemoradiotherapy cc:gross hematuria.
High-Grade T1 Bladder Cancer: A Clinical Quandary Daniel Canter, M.D. Assistant Professor of Urology Emory University presentation created for:
Radical Cystectomy As Early Primary Therapy for T1G3 Bladder Cancer Karim Touijer and Bernard H. Bochner. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Bladder Cancer R. Zenhäusern. Bladder cancer: Epidemiology Incidence:20/100000/year (Europe) Mortality:8-9/100000/year Fourth most common cancer in men.
FISH Analysis in Urothelial Cancer Michael Neat, Dr M Mason and Dr A Chandra.
Meta-analysis of trials of radiotherapy in DCIS Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG)
© Open University Press, 2004 Overview Prevention and screening Psychological predictors of screening The ethics and usefulness of screening? Psychological.
Controversies in the management of PSA-only recurrent disease Stephen J. Freedland, MD Associate Professor of Urology and Pathology Durham VA Medical Center.
SUPERFICIAL BLADDER CANCER THERAPY
Lecture Fourteen Biomedical Engineering for Global Health.
Electronic Image Safe (Remove for final output). BCG Plus IFN-  Combination Therapy Rationale Evidence of synergistic activity Evidence of synergistic.
Comparative quantitative evaluation of the XIAP, survivin & Ki67 transcript levels in urine & tissue samples of bladder cancer patients.
1 IMPROVED DETECTION AND SURVEILLANCE OF BLADDER CANCER USING A POINT-OF- CARE NMP22 ASSAY Giora Katz MD, Raoul Salup MD, And the NMP22 Clinical Investigation.
Management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer Todd M. Morgan Vanderbilt University.
Surgical Management of Urothelial Carcinoma A 21 st Century Approach Douglas S. Scherr, M.D. Clinical Director, Urologic Oncology Weill Medical College.
1 Phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine and carboplatin followed by paclitaxel as first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma Presented by.
Aortic Aneurysm Screening
Prostate Cancer: A Case for Active Surveillance Philip Kantoff MD Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School.
Biostatistics Case Studies Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 2: Diagnostic Classification.
Improved Detection of Bladder Cancer in Diagnosis and Surveillance Patients Using a Point-of-Care Proteomic Assay Barry Stein, M.D. G. Katz, M.D. NMP22.
Initial Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer Using a Point-of-Care Assay H. Barton Grossman, M.D. and the NMP22 Clinical Investigation Group.
Management of T1G3 Bladder cancer Dr Charles Chabert.
EORTC scores of recurrence and progression in a Romanian cohort First author: Anda Ştefan Co-authors: Radu Mihail Boja, PhD Ovidiu Ioan Golea, PhD Ladislau.
Neoplasms of the bladder
Contemporary Treatment Guidelines on Bladder Cancer
Prof. Francesco Boccardo University and National Cancer Research Institute of Genoa, Italy Prof. Francesco Boccardo University and National Cancer Research.
 Volunteer bias  Lead time bias  Length bias  Stage migration bias  Pseudodisease.
Screening Puja Myles
Implications of lung cancer screening in the new millenia Andrew R. Haas, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Medicine Section of Interventional Pulmonary and.
Evaluating Screening Programs Dr. Jørn Olsen Epi 200B January 19, 2010.
Screening and its Useful Tools Thomas Songer, PhD Basic Epidemiology South Asian Cardiovascular Research Methodology Workshop.
MpMRI in Prostate cancer A Urologist’s Perspective Diagnosis Treatment Choice Surgical Planning Dr. Peter Heathcote, Adjunct Professor APCRC-Q QUT, Senior.
University Hospitals Portage Medical Center. Portage County has one of the highest annual incidence rates of bladder cancer in the state of Ohio. According.
CT Screening for Lung Cancer vs. Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Pamela M. McMahon, PhD; Chung Yin Kong, PhD; Bruce E. Johnson; Milton.
Appendix 2 Comparison of screening from age 20 and age 25 Table of harms and benefits.
Trends in bladder cancer treatments
Statistical Considerations for Detection of Bladder Cancer by Microsatellite Analysis (MSA) of Urinary Sediment: Multi-Institutional Study Presentation.
Bladder Cancer Mark Browning, M.D. ‘ IUSME.
Kidney Cancer – All You Need to Know!
Carcinoma of the urinary bladder in a tertiary care setting in a developing country Farhana Badar, Ambreen Sattar, Fouzia Meerza, Noreen Irfan, Neelam.
Bladder Cancer R. Zenhäusern.
Cancer prevention and early detection
Cancer prevention and early detection
Screening for Ovarian Cancer
Per-Anders Abrahamsson Department of Urology Malmö University Hospital
Bladder Cancer: What’s New?
Background & Objectives
2017 USPSTF Draft Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening
BME 301 Lecture Fourteen.
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages (July 2010)
Volume 71, Issue 6, Pages e171-e172 (June 2017)
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages (April 2013)
Volume 59, Issue 6, Pages (June 2011)
Nomograms for Bladder Cancer
Prostate Cancer Screening- Update
Figure 1 Differences in bladder cancer between genders
Long-term Cancer-specific Survival in Patients with High-risk, Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer and Tumour Progression: A Systematic Review  Sven van.
Prognostic Factors in Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Tumors
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages (July 2008)
Presentation transcript:

Should We Screen for Bladder Cancer in a High Risk Population: A Cost per Life-Year Saved Analysis? Yair Lotan, Robert S. Svatek, Arthur I. Sagalowsky

Should We Screen? Prevalence –5 th most common cancer –Known risk factors Detection Methods –Hgb dipstick, urine markers –BladderChek (NMP22): FDA approved for detection in high risk population Survival Benefit –25% muscle-invasive at presentation –Less invasive cancers have better survival Cost-effectiveness

Markov Model High Risk Patient Negative Positive Screening True Negative= No Cancer False Negative= Cancer No Down-staging True Positive= Cancer +Down-staging False Positive= No Cancer

Markov Model Cancer Low-grade stage T0, Tis, T1 High-grade stage T0, Tis, T1 Muscle invasive (stage T2 to T4) Metastatic AJCC stage distribution: NCDB Stage%

No Evidence of Disease Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Progression Death from other causes Recurrence Markov cycle

No Evidence of Disease Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Metastases Death from other causes Markov cycle Death from bladder cancer

BladderChek (NMP22) Screening 1331 patients with no Hx cancer: –Hx smoking –Symptoms: hematuria, dysuria Bladder cancer in 79 pts (6%) –Sens. 55.7% –Spec. 85.7% –PPV: 19.7% –NPV: 97% 60 yr olds with Hx smoking: PPV 37% Grossman et al. JAMA 293, 2005

Hematuria Home Screening 1575 healthy men 50 years old or older tested urine with Hgb dipsticks for 14 days Mean Age: 65 years Smoking: –Current: 16% –Former: 44% Messing et al. Urology Vol 45 (3), March 1995, Pages

Grade and Stage in Screened and Unscreened Patients Bladder Cancer: Grade and Stage UnscreenedScreened Low-Grade (1,2) Superficial (Ta,T1) 290 (57%)11 (52.4%) High-Grade (3) Superficial (Ta,T1, TIS) 99 (19.4%)9 (42.9%) Muscle Invasive or Greater 122 (23.9%)1 (4.8%) Totals51121

Model Assumptions VariableBase Case Cancer Incidence4% Marker Accuracy Sensitivity Low grade.61 ( ) High grade.79 ( ) Specificity.86 ( ) Down-staging with screening50% Yearly rate of death from other causes 0.65% Lotan and Roehrborn. Urology 2003 Jan;61(1): Grossman et al. JAMA 293, 2005

Yearly % Recurrence: Non-muscle invasive Low Grade High Grade Progression: Non-muscle invasive Low Grade42211 High Grade Progression to Metastases after Cystectomy Death from Bladder Cancer in Patients with Metastatic Disease after Chemotherapy Herr. J Clin Oncol 1995 Heney NM. J Urol 1983 Millan-Rodriguez F. J Urol 2000 Haukaas S. BJU Int 1999 Lotan Y. J Clin Oncol 2005Stein JP. J Clin Oncol 2001 von der Maase. J Clin Oncol 2000 Model Assumptions

Model Costs Cost Parameters Base Case NMP-22 test$24 Office cystoscopy$206 Cytology$56 Intravenous Pyelogram$126 CT scan Abdomen/pelvis$337 Office visit Level 3$55 TURBT$3,812 BCG$1,620 Cystectomy$22,292 Chemotherapy$43,000 Last 6 months of life$50,000 Discount Rate3%

Model Outcomes Cancer Incidence Survival Benefit (LYS/1000) CE ($/LYS) Cost Savings ($ per 1000) 0.50% ,366 1%0.7534, %1.124,333 2%1.4916,000 3%2.2559,000 4% ,000 5% ,000 6% ,000

One-way Sensitivity Analyses VariableBase CaseThreshold Cancer Incidence4%1.6% Cost Parameters Screening test (NMP-22)$24$126 Office cystoscopy$206$694 Marker Accuracy Sensitivity Low grade.61( )^ High grade.79 ( )26% Specificity.86 ( )54% Down-staging with screening 50%20%

2-way Sensitivity Analysis

Varying Interval of Screening Base model: one-time screen –lack of data regarding yearly incidence rates of cancer after a negative prior screen. Annual Screen: –initial cancer incidence of 4% –subsequent yearly incidence of 0.1% –$46,693/LYS Biannual Screen: –initial cancer incidence of 4% –subsequent yearly incidence of 0.1% –$6,837/LYS Since there are very few additional cancers detected, the incremental discounted life year gain is less than 0.1 years

Cystoscopy and cytology as screening tool Assume –95% sensitivity and specificity –cancer incidence of 4% LYS: 3.6 per 1000 CE: $30,387/LYS A cancer incidence of only 1% –$291,000/LYS

Conclusions Model found that a urine-based marker such as bladderchek (NMP-22) can reduce mortality and save costs in a high risk population. Prospective trials needed to determine: –Cancer incidence in high risk populations –accuracy of bladder cancer detection in a completely asymptomatic cohort –Survival benefits of screening