癌症影像生物标志物驱动伴随诊断的经济评价:系统评价。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1007/s40258-023-00833-5
Sibo Liu, Daniel SW Tan, Nicholas Graves, Ann-Marie Chacko
{"title":"癌症影像生物标志物驱动伴随诊断的经济评价:系统评价。","authors":"Sibo Liu,&nbsp;Daniel SW Tan,&nbsp;Nicholas Graves,&nbsp;Ann-Marie Chacko","doi":"10.1007/s40258-023-00833-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>There is a boom in imaging biomarker-driven companion and complementary diagnostics (CDx) for cancer, which brings opportunity for personalized medicine. Whether adoption of these technologies is likely to be cost-effective is a relevant question, and studies on this topic are emerging. Despite the growing number of economic evaluations, no review of the methods used, quality of reporting, and potential risk of bias has been done. We report a systematic review to identify, summarize, and critique the cost-effectiveness evidence for the use of biomarker-driven and imaging-based CDx to inform cancer treatments.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Systematic literature searches until 30 December 2022 were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Scopus for economic evaluations of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer. The inclusion and exclusion of studies were determined by pre-specified eligibility criteria informed by the ‘Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome’ (PICO) framework. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the quality of reporting, and the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) was used to examine the potential risk of bias of included studies.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 12 papers were included, with eight model-based and four trial-based studies. Implementing biomarker-driven, imaging-based CDx was reported to be cost-effective, cost saving, or dominant (cost saving and more effective) in ten papers. Inconsistent methods were found in the studies, and the quality of reporting was lacking against the CHEERS reporting guideline. Several potential sources of ‘risk of bias’ were identified. These should be acknowledged and carefully considered by researchers planning future health economic evaluations.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite favorable results towards the implementation of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer, there is room for improvement regarding the quantity and quality of economic evaluations, and that is expected as the awareness of current study limitations increases and more clinical data become available in the future.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic Evaluations of Imaging Biomarker-Driven Companion Diagnostics for Cancer: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Sibo Liu,&nbsp;Daniel SW Tan,&nbsp;Nicholas Graves,&nbsp;Ann-Marie Chacko\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-023-00833-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>There is a boom in imaging biomarker-driven companion and complementary diagnostics (CDx) for cancer, which brings opportunity for personalized medicine. Whether adoption of these technologies is likely to be cost-effective is a relevant question, and studies on this topic are emerging. Despite the growing number of economic evaluations, no review of the methods used, quality of reporting, and potential risk of bias has been done. We report a systematic review to identify, summarize, and critique the cost-effectiveness evidence for the use of biomarker-driven and imaging-based CDx to inform cancer treatments.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Systematic literature searches until 30 December 2022 were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Scopus for economic evaluations of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer. The inclusion and exclusion of studies were determined by pre-specified eligibility criteria informed by the ‘Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome’ (PICO) framework. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the quality of reporting, and the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) was used to examine the potential risk of bias of included studies.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 12 papers were included, with eight model-based and four trial-based studies. Implementing biomarker-driven, imaging-based CDx was reported to be cost-effective, cost saving, or dominant (cost saving and more effective) in ten papers. Inconsistent methods were found in the studies, and the quality of reporting was lacking against the CHEERS reporting guideline. Several potential sources of ‘risk of bias’ were identified. These should be acknowledged and carefully considered by researchers planning future health economic evaluations.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite favorable results towards the implementation of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer, there is room for improvement regarding the quantity and quality of economic evaluations, and that is expected as the awareness of current study limitations increases and more clinical data become available in the future.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-023-00833-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-023-00833-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:癌症成像生物标志物驱动的伴随和补充诊断(CDx)正在蓬勃发展,这为个性化医疗带来了机会。采用这些技术是否可能具有成本效益是一个相关的问题,关于这一主题的研究正在兴起。尽管经济评估数量不断增加,但尚未对所使用的方法、报告质量和潜在的偏见风险进行审查。我们报告了一项系统综述,以确定、总结和评论使用生物标志物驱动和基于成像的CDx为癌症治疗提供信息的成本效益证据。方法:遵循系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目。截至2022年12月30日,在PubMed、Web of Science、Medline、Embase和Scopus进行了系统文献检索,以对癌症基于成像生物标志物的CDx进行经济评估。纳入和排除研究是根据“患者、干预、比较、结果”(PICO)框架中预先规定的资格标准确定的。综合健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)用于评估报告质量,经济评估中的偏差(ECOBIAS)用于检查纳入研究的潜在偏差风险。结果:共纳入12篇论文,其中8篇是基于模型的研究,4篇是基于试验的研究。在十篇论文中,实施生物标志物驱动的、基于成像的CDx被报道为具有成本效益、节省成本或占主导地位(节省成本且更有效)。研究中发现了不一致的方法,并且报告质量缺乏CHEERS报告指南。确定了“偏见风险”的几个潜在来源。规划未来健康经济评估的研究人员应该承认并仔细考虑这些问题。结论:尽管基于成像生物标志物的CDx在癌症的实施方面取得了有利的结果,但在经济评估的数量和质量方面仍有改进的空间,随着人们对当前研究局限性的认识不断提高,未来将有更多的临床数据可用,这是可以预期的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Economic Evaluations of Imaging Biomarker-Driven Companion Diagnostics for Cancer: A Systematic Review

Introduction

There is a boom in imaging biomarker-driven companion and complementary diagnostics (CDx) for cancer, which brings opportunity for personalized medicine. Whether adoption of these technologies is likely to be cost-effective is a relevant question, and studies on this topic are emerging. Despite the growing number of economic evaluations, no review of the methods used, quality of reporting, and potential risk of bias has been done. We report a systematic review to identify, summarize, and critique the cost-effectiveness evidence for the use of biomarker-driven and imaging-based CDx to inform cancer treatments.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Systematic literature searches until 30 December 2022 were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Scopus for economic evaluations of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer. The inclusion and exclusion of studies were determined by pre-specified eligibility criteria informed by the ‘Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome’ (PICO) framework. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the quality of reporting, and the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) was used to examine the potential risk of bias of included studies.

Results

A total of 12 papers were included, with eight model-based and four trial-based studies. Implementing biomarker-driven, imaging-based CDx was reported to be cost-effective, cost saving, or dominant (cost saving and more effective) in ten papers. Inconsistent methods were found in the studies, and the quality of reporting was lacking against the CHEERS reporting guideline. Several potential sources of ‘risk of bias’ were identified. These should be acknowledged and carefully considered by researchers planning future health economic evaluations.

Conclusion

Despite favorable results towards the implementation of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer, there is room for improvement regarding the quantity and quality of economic evaluations, and that is expected as the awareness of current study limitations increases and more clinical data become available in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
期刊最新文献
Social Costs of Smoking in the Czech Republic. Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities. Onasemnogene Abeparvovec Gene Therapy and Risdiplam for the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis. The Impact of the Approach to Accounting for Age and Sex in Economic Models on Predicted Quality-Adjusted Life-Years. Measuring the Impact of Medical Cannabis Law Adoption on Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Costs: A Difference-in-Difference Analysis, 2003–2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1