Methods for identifying the cost-effective case definition cut-off for sequential monitoring tests: An extension of phelps and mushlin

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 327-334

  Longo, Roberta ^a   Baxter, Paul ^a   Hall, Peter ^a   Hewison, Jenny ^a   Afshar, Mehran ^b   Hall, Geoff ^b   McCabe, Christopher ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c Capital Health Edmonton   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RECURRENCE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HUMAN; OVARY CANCER; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; BLOOD; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PROCEDURES; TUMOR RECURRENCE;

CA 125 ANTIGEN;

CA-125 ANTIGEN; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PRECISION MEDICINE;

EID: 84897543486     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0134-1     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diagnostics Assessment Programme. http://www.nice.org.uk/diagnostics. Accessed 29th July 2013.
2. Department of Health and Aging. Co-dependent and Hybrid Technologies. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/hta/publishing.nsf/Content/co-1. Accessed 29th July 2013.
3. Phelps CE, Mushlin A. Focussing technology assessment using decision theory. Med Decis Mak. 1988;8(4):279-89.
4. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS. Genomic Medicine: a primer. New Engl J Med. 2002;347(19):1512-20.
5. Carroll PR, Whitson JM, Cooperberg MR. Serum prostate-specific antigen for the early detection of prostate cancer: always, never, or only sometimes? J Clin Oncol. 2011;28(4):345-6.
6. Rustin GJ, van der Burg ME, Griffin CL, Guthrie D, Lamont A, Jayson GC, Kristensen G, Mediola C, Coens C, Qian W, Parmar MK. Swart AM; MRC OV05; EORTC 55955 investigators. Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9747):1155-63.
7. Parkes J, Guha IN, Roderick P, Harris S, Cross R, Manos MM, Irving W, Zaitoun A, Wheatley M, Ryder S, Rosenberg W. Enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test accurately identifies liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. J Viral Hepat. 2011;18(1):23-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2009.01263.x.
8. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. p. 156-164.
9. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means? PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(9):733-44.
10. NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London; 2008.
11. Pesce LL, Metz CE, Berbaum KS. On the convexity of ROC curves estimated from radiological test results. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(8):960-8.
12. Grey DR, Morgan BJT. Some aspects of ROC curve-fitting: normal and logistic models. J Math Psychol. 1972;9:128-39.
13. Gu W, Pepe MS. Estimating the diagnostic likelihood ratio of a continuous marker. Biostatistics. 2011;12(1):87-101.
14. Hanley JS. The robustness of the binormal assumptions used in fitting ROC curves. Med Decis Mak. 1988;8:197-203.
15. Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen J-H. Maximum-likelihood estimation of ROC curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med. 1998;17:1033-53.
16. Metz CE, Pan X. Proper binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol. 1999;43:1-33.
17. Burden RL, Faires JD. Numerical analysis. 7th ed. Conn: Brooks/Cole; 2000.
18. Pesce LL, Metz CE. Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of "proper" binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:814-29.
19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ovarian cancer: the recognition and initial management of ovarian cancer. London: NICE Full Guideline; 2011.
20. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736-41.
21. Mason H, Jones-Lee M, Donaldson C. Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data. Health Econ. 2009;18(8):933-50.
22. Towse A. Should NICE's threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes. BMJ. 2009;338:268-9.
23. Claxton K, Martin P, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. Draft Final Report October 2012. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/reports/ Methods%20for%20the%20Estimation%20of%20the%20NICE%20Cost%20Effectiveness%20Thr eshold%20%28Draft%20Final%20Report%29%20%281%29.pdf.
24. Novielli N, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests in combination: is it important to allow for performance dependency? Value Health. 2013;16(4):536-41.