Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Economic Evaluations of Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathways Incorporating Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Context: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate has been shown to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, evidence is still evolving about how best to integrate prebiopsy MRI into the diagnostic pathway and for which patients, and whether MRI-based pathways are cost effective. Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the cost effectiveness of prebiopsy MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways. Evidence acquisition: INTERTASC search strategies were adapted and combined with terms for prostate cancer and MRI, and used to search a wide range of databases and registries covering medicine, allied health, clinical trials, and health economics. No limits were set on country, setting, or publication year. Included studies were full economic evaluations of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways with at least one strategy including prebiopsy MRI. Model-based studies were assessed using the Philips framework, and trial-based studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Evidence synthesis: A total of 6593 records were screened after removing duplicates, and eight full-text papers, reporting on seven studies (two model based) were included in this review. Included studies were judged to have a low-to-moderate risk of bias. All studies reported cost-effectiveness analyses based in high-income countries but had significant heterogeneity in diagnostic strategies, patient populations, treatment strategies, and model characteristics. Prebiopsy MRI-based pathways were cost effective compared with pathways relying on ultrasound-guided biopsy in all eight studies. Conclusions: Incorporation of prebiopsy MRI into prostate cancer diagnostic pathways is likely to be more cost effective in than that into pathways relying on prostate-specific antigen and ultrasound-guided biopsy. The optimal prostate cancer diagnostic pathway design and method of integrating prebiopsy MRI are not yet known. Variations between health care systems and diagnostic approaches necessitate further evaluation for a particular country or setting to know how best to apply prebiopsy MRI. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at studies that measured the health care costs and benefits and harms to patients of using prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide whether men need a prostate biopsy for possible prostate cancer. We found that using prostate MRI before biopsy is likely to be less costly for health care services and probably has better outcomes for patients being investigated for prostate cancer. It is still unclear what the best way to use prostate MRI is.

The importance of disability representation to address implicit bias in the workplace.

Introduction: People are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment. Barriers can be physical or be caused by people's implicit and explicit attitudes towards people with disabilities. Methods: We utilise the Implicit Association Test to investigate implicit attitudes towards people with disabilities among Human Resource professionals and people involved in making hiring decisions. Results: We find no significant differences between people who work for large companies or Small- to Medium-sized Enterprises. Similarly, working in Human Resources (or making recruitment decisions) has no effect on implicit bias. We supply the first evidence linking a person's own health status (measured using EQ-5D-5L) to their implicit bias. We find that a worse health status is associated with lower implicit bias towards people with disabilities. In addition, we find women have lower implicit bias than men. Discussion: The discussion reflects on the need for greater disability representation within the workplace - especially in making hiring decisions.

Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review analytical methods that enable the incorporation of equity concerns within economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and EconLit was undertaken from database inception to February 2021. The search was designed to identify methodological approaches currently employed to evaluate health-related equity impacts in economic evaluation studies of healthcare interventions. Studies were eligible if they described or elaborated on a formal quantitative method used to integrate equity concerns within economic evaluation studies. Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation, and cost-consequence analyses, as well as health technology appraisals, budget impact analyses, and any relevant literature reviews were included. For each of the identified methods, we provided summaries of the scope of equity considerations covered, the methods employed and their key attributes, data requirements, outcomes, and strengths and weaknesses. A traffic light assessment of the practical suitability of each method was undertaken, alongside a worked example applying the different methods to evaluate the same decision problem. Finally, the review summarises the typical trade-offs arising in cost-effectiveness analyses and discusses the extent to which the evaluation methods are able to capture these. RESULTS: In total, 68 studies were included in the review. Methods could broadly be grouped into equity-based weighting (EBW) methods, extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and mathematical programming (MP). EBW and MP methods enable equity consideration through adjustment to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, whereas equity considerations are represented through financial risk protection (FRP) outcomes in ECEA, social welfare functions (SWFs) in DCEA, and scoring/ranking systems in MCDA. The review identified potential concerns for EBW methods and MCDA with respect to data availability and for EBW methods and MP with respect to explicitly measuring changes in inequality. The only potential concern for ECEA related to the use of FRP metrics, which may not be relevant for all healthcare systems. In contrast, DCEA presented no significant concerns but relies on the use of SWFs, which may be unfamiliar to some audiences and requires societal preference elicitation. Consideration of typical cost-effectiveness and equity-related trade-offs highlighted the flexibility of most methods with respect to their ability to capture such trade-offs. Notable exceptions were trade-offs between quality of life and length of life, for which we found DCEA and ECEA unsuitable, and the assessment of lost opportunity costs, for which we found only DCEA and MP to be suitable. The worked example demonstrated that each method is designed with fundamentally different analytical objectives in mind. CONCLUSIONS: The review emphasises that some approaches are better suited to particular decision problems than others, that methods are subject to different practical requirements, and that significantly different conclusions can be observed depending on the choice of method and the assumptions made. Further, to fully operationalise these frameworks, there remains a need to develop consensus over the motivation for equity assessment, which should necessarily be informed with stakeholder involvement. Future research of this topic should be a priority, particularly within the context of equity evaluation in healthcare policy decisions.

Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from discrete choice experiments can be used to enrich understanding of preferences, inform the (re)design of screening programmes and/or improve communication within public campaigns about the benefits and harms of screening. However, reviews of screening discrete choice experiments highlight significant discrepancies between stated choices and real choices, particularly regarding willingness to undergo cancer screening. The identification and selection of attributes and associated levels is a fundamental component of designing a discrete choice experiment. Misspecification or misinterpretation of attributes may lead to non-compensatory behaviours, attribute non-attendance and responses that lack external validity. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise evidence on attribute development, alongside an in-depth review of included attributes and methodological challenges, to provide a resource for researchers undertaking future studies in cancer screening. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify discrete choice experiments estimating preferences towards cancer screening, dated between 1990 and December 2020. Data were synthesised narratively. In-depth analysis of attributes led to classification into four categories: test specific, service delivery, outcomes and monetary. Attribute significance and relative importance were also analysed. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included at full text. They covered a range of cancer sites: over half (26/49) examined colorectal screening. Most studies elicited general public preferences (34/49). In total, 280 attributes were included, 90% (252/280) of which were significant. Overall, test sensitivity and mortality reduction were most frequently found to be the most important to respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in reporting the identification, selection and construction of attributes used within cancer screening discrete choice experiments are needed. This review also highlights the importance of considering the complexity of choice tasks when considering risk information or compound attributes. Patient and public involvement and stakeholder engagement are recommended to optimise understanding of unavoidably complex choice tasks throughout the design process. To ensure quality and maximise comparability across studies, further research is needed to develop a risk-of-bias measure for discrete choice experiments.

Accounting for Heterogeneity in Resource Allocation Decisions: Methods and Practice in UK Cancer Technology Appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: The availability of novel, more efficacious and expensive cancer therapies is increasing, resulting in significant treatment effect heterogeneity and complicated treatment and disease pathways. The aim of this study is to review the extent to which UK cancer technology appraisals (TAs) consider the impact of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. METHODS: A systematic search of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence TAs of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancer was undertaken for the period up to April 2020. For each TA, the pivotal clinical studies and economic evaluations were reviewed for considerations of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. The study critically reviews the use of subgroup analysis and real-world translation in economic evaluations, alongside specific attributes of the economic modeling framework. RESULTS: The search identified 49 TAs including 49 economic models. In total, 804 subgroup analyses were reported across 69 clinical studies. The most common stratification factors were age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, with 15% (119 of 804) of analyses demonstrating significantly different clinical outcomes to the main population; economic subgroup analyses were undertaken in only 17 TAs. All economic models were cohort-level with the majority described as partitioned survival models (39) or Markov/semi-Markov models. The impact of real-world heterogeneity on disease progression estimates was only explored in 2 models. CONCLUSION: The ability of current modeling approaches to capture patient and treatment effect heterogeneity is constrained by their limited flexibility and simplistic nature. This study highlights a need for the use of more sophisticated modeling methods that enable greater consideration of real-world heterogeneity.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care. METHODS: Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored. RESULTS: Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools. DECISION MODEL: In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters. SURVEY: Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals). LIMITATIONS: There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates. CONCLUSION: The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In the UK, people with cancer tend to die sooner than people with cancer in other European countries. This may be because their cancers are caught at a later stage, perhaps after they have spread. Spotting cancer earlier in people, and testing them sooner, may extend people's lives. Researchers have developed 'diagnostic tools', which give the probability of having cancer, based on a patient's symptoms, blood test results and other information. The tools help family doctors decide who needs further testing for possible cancer, including cancers of the digestive, urinary and reproductive systems, and in the blood. We do not know how many family doctors have these tools, or how well the tools work. We systematically reviewed published studies about how these tools were developed, how good and accurate they are, and what effects their use has on patients. We found that many tools have been developed, but there is little evidence that they improve the quality or length of life. We sent surveys to family doctors all over the UK asking if they had the tools at their practice and if they used them. Based on the replies we received, we estimate that the tools are in about one in three practices. They are likely to be used in about half of the practices where they are available. For practices in England only, we looked for, but did not find, any association between using the tools and the number of urgent appointments made for cancer testing. We used a computer model to show what might happen if family doctors used the tools for patients who have symptoms of bowel cancer. In our model, if general practitioners used the tools, patients would need fewer appointments before they were referred to a specialist. This should reduce the time to diagnosis and treatment, compared with not using the tools. However, there is very little evidence as to whether or not this is indeed the case. Therefore, at the moment, we cannot say whether or not the use of such tools by general practitioners is better for patients and the NHS. More research is needed on what effect these tools have on patients, especially as to whether or not quality and length of life are improved.

Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States.

There is recent interest in using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to derive health state utility values, and results can differ from time tradeoff (TTO). Clearly, DCE is "choice based," whereas TTO is generally considered a "matching" task. We explore whether procedural adaptations to the TTO, which make the method more closely resemble a DCE, make TTO and choice converge. In particular, we test whether making the matching procedure in TTO less "transparent" to the respondent reduces disparities between TTO and DCE. We designed an interactive survey that was hosted on the Internet, and 2022 interviews were achieved in the United Kingdom in a representative sample of the population. We found a marked divergence between TTO and DCE, but this was not related to the "transparency" of the TTO procedure. We conclude that a difference in the error structure between TTO and choice and that factors other than differences in utility are affecting choices is driving the divergence. The latter has fundamental implications for the way choice data are analyzed and interpreted.

Asking older people about fear of falling did not have a negative effect.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess whether completing a questionnaire on risk of falling could affect outcome measures: fear of falling, reported falls, and health service contacts in older people (panel conditioning). METHODS: We used a postal questionnaire to assess the effect on falls risk of implementing falls injury prevention guidelines within a single locality in outer London, UK. We compared responses for the baseline and 6-month follow-up surveys with those for a fresh survey. The latter was sent to a new pool of subjects drawn from the same population, and was sent only once; timing coincided with the follow-up survey. RESULTS: At baseline, we received 498 responses for 1,000 (50%) surveys sent; of these, 358 (72%) subsequently returned the follow-up survey. For the fresh survey, we received 1,261 out of 2,000 (61%) responses to the fresh survey. The odds ratio for the effect of panel conditioning on fear of falling was 0.92 (95% confidence interval CI = 0.64-1.33), within our predefined limit for equivalence. Odds ratios for the effect on reported falls and health service contacts were 0.87 (95% CI = 0.59-1.29) and 0.75 (95% CI = 0.55-1.02), respectively. CONCLUSION: The proportions of subjects who feared falling in the follow-up survey and in the fresh survey were equivalent. Reduced reporting of falls and health service use in the follow-up survey suggest that the potential for panel effects cannot be ignored.

TOIB Study. Are topical or oral ibuprofen equally effective for the treatment of chronic knee pain presenting in primary care: a randomised controlled trial with patient preference study. [ISRCTN79353052].

BACKGROUND: Many older people have chronic knee pain. Both topical and oral non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat this. Oral NSAIDS are effective, at least in the short term, but can have severe adverse effects. Topical NSAIDs also appear to be effective, at least in the short term. One might expect topical NSAIDs both to be less effective and to have fewer adverse effects than oral NSAIDs. If topical NSAIDs have fewer adverse effects this may outweigh both the reduction in effectiveness and the higher cost of topical compared to oral treatment. Patient preferences may influence the comparative effectiveness of drugs delivered via different routes. METHODS: TOIB is a randomised trial comparing topical and oral ibuprofen, with a parallel patient preference study. We are recruiting people aged 50 or over with chronic knee pain, from 27 MRC General Practice Research Framework practices across the UK. We are seeking to recruit 283 participants to the RCT and 379 to the PPS. Participants will be followed up for up to two years (with the majority reaching one year). Outcomes will be assessed by postal questionnaire, nurse examination, laboratory tests and medical record searches at one and two years or the end of the study. DISCUSSION: This study will provide new evidence on the overall costs and benefits of treating chronic knee pain with either oral or topical ibuprofen. The use of a patient preference design is unusual, but will allow us to explore how preference influences response to a medication. In addition, it will provide more information on adverse events. This study will provide evidence to inform primary care practitioners, and possibly influence practice.