Economic Impact of Tumor Markers in Bladder Cancer Surveillance

Urology

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 131-135

  Hong, Y Mark ^a   Loughlin, Kevin R ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOKERATIN 19 FRAGMENT; CYTOKERATIN 20; MICROSATELLITE DNA; TELOMERASE; TUMOR MARKER;

ARTICLE; BLADDER CANCER; CANCER RECURRENCE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYSTOSCOPY; DISEASE MARKER; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SENSITIVITY AND SENSIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

CARCINOMA, TRANSITIONAL CELL; COST OF ILLNESS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYSTOSCOPY; HUMANS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS;

EID: 38649116919     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.014     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 1975-2002, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2002/sections.html Accessed January 31, 2006
2. Botteman M.F., Pashos C.L., Redaelli A., et al. The health economics of bladder cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 21 (2003) 1315-1330
3. Lokeshwar V.B., Habuchi T., Grossman H.B., et al. Bladder tumor markers beyond cytology: international consensus panel on bladder tumor markers. Urology 66 Suppl 6A (2005) 35-63
4. Malkowicz S.B. Management of superficial bladder cancer. In: Walsh P.C., Retik A.B., Vaughan Jr. E.D., et al. (Eds). Campbell's Urology. 8th ed. (2002), W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia 2785-2802
5. Raghavan D., Shipley W.U., Garnick M.B., et al. Biology and management of bladder cancer. N Engl J Med 322 (1990) 1129-1138
6. Schrag D., Hsieh L.J., Rabbani F., et al. Adherence to surveillance among patients with superficial bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (2003) 588-597
7. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Consumer Price Index calculator. http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc Accessed December 31, 2006
8. Bank of Canada, Consumer Price Index calculator. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html Accessed December 31, 2006
9. Brown M.L., and Fintor L. The economic burden of cancer. In: Greenwald P., Kramer B.S., and Weed D.L. (Eds). Cancer Prevention and Control (1995), Marcel-Dekker, New York 69-81
10. Riley G.F., Potosky A.L., Lubitz J.D., et al. Medicare payments from diagnosis to death for elderly cancer patients by stage at diagnosis. Med Care 33 (1995) 828-841
11. Sangar V.K., Ragavan N., Matanhelia S.S., et al. The economic consequences of prostate and bladder cancer in the UK. BJU Int 95 (2005) 59-63
12. Hedelin H., Holmäng S., and Wiman L. The cost of bladder tumour treatment and follow-up. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36 (2002) 344-347
13. Rodgers M., Nixon J., Hempel S., et al. Diagnostic tests and algorithms used in the investigation of haematuria: systematic reviews and economic evaluations. Health Technol Assess 10 (2006) 1-3
14. Glas A.S., Roos D., Deutekom M., et al. Tumor markers in the diagnosis of primary bladder cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 169 (2003) 1975-1982
15. Brown F.M. Urine cytology: is it still the gold standard for screening?. Urol Clin North Am 27 (2000) 25-37
16. Grossman H.B., Soloway M., Messing E., et al. Surveillance for recurrent bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA 295 (2006) 299-305
17. Lotan Y., and Roehrborn C.G. Sensitivity and specificity of commonly available bladder tumor markers versus cytology: results of a comprehensive literature review and meta-analyses. Urology 61 (2006) 109-118
18. van Rhijn B.W., van der Poel H.G., and van der Kwast T.H. Urine markers for bladder cancer surveillance: a systematic review. Eur Urol 47 (2005) 736-748
19. Grossman H.B., Messing E., Soloway M., et al. Detection of bladder cancer using a point-of-care proteomic assay. JAMA 293 (2005) 810-816
20. Sanchini M.A., Gunelli R., Nanni O., et al. Relevance of urine telomerase in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. JAMA 294 (2005) 2052-2056
21. Black P.C., Brown G.A., and Dinney C.P. Molecular markers of urothelial cancer and their use in the monitoring of superficial urothelial cancer. J Clin Oncol 24 (2006) 5528-5535
22. Liou L.S. Urothelial cancer biomarkers for detection and surveillance. Urology 67 3 Suppl 1 (2006) 25-34
23. Zippe C., Pandrangi L., and Agarwal A. NMP22 is a sensitive, cost-effective test in patients at risk for bladder cancer. J Urol 161 (1999) 62-65
24. Lodde M., Mian C., Comploj E., et al. uCyt+ test: alternative to cystoscopy for less-invasive follow-up of patients with low risk of urothelial carcinoma. Urology 67 (2006) 950-954
25. United Kingdom and Eire Bladder Tumor Antigen Study Group. The use of the bladder-tumour associated analyte test to determine the type of cystoscopy in the follow-up of patients with bladder cancer. Br J Urol 79 (1997) 362-366
26. Lotan Y., and Roehrborn C.G. Cost-effectiveness of a modified care protocol substituting bladder tumor markers for cystoscopy for the followup of patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a decision analytical approach. J Urol 167 (2002) 75-79
27. Nam R.K., Redelmeier D.A., Spiess P.E., et al. Comparison of molecular and conventional strategies for followup of superficial bladder cancer using decision analysis. J Urol 163 (2000) 752-757
28. Lachaine J., Valiquette L., and Crott R. Economic evaluation of NMP22 in the management of bladder cancer. Can J Urol 7 (2000) 974-980
29. Vriesema J.L., Poucki M.H., Kiemeney L.A., et al. Patient opinion of urinary tests versus flexible urethrocystoscopy in follow-up examination for superficial bladder cancer: a utility analysis. Urology 56 (2000) 793-797
30. Boman H., Hedelin H., and Holmang S. Four bladder tumor markers have a disappointingly low sensitivity for small size and low grade recurrence. J Urol 167 (2002) 80-83