Impact of adoption of a decision algorithm including PCA3 for repeat biopsy on the costs for prostate cancer diagnosis in France.

OBJECTIVE: A recent expert study (RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM)) including a panel of 12 European urologists reported that the PCA3 score may be instrumental in taking appropriate prostate biopsy (PBx) decisions, mainly for repeat PBx. This study determined the cost/benefit balance of introducing PCA3 in the decision-making for PBx in France. METHODS: Two RAM models, without and with PCA3, were retrospectively applied to a sample of 808 French men who had PBx in 2010 (78% first, 22% repeat). Outcome measures included the proportion of PBx that could have been avoided (i.e., judged inappropriate) in the French sample according to both RAM models, and the estimated impact of application of these models on the annual number of PBx and associated costs for France (based on most recent published data). RESULTS: Complete profiles were available for 698 men. In the model without PCA3, 2% of PBx were deemed inappropriate. Knowledge of PCA3 would have avoided another 7% of PBx. Repeat PBx would have been avoided in 5% of cases without PCA3 and in 37% with PCA3. For France, application of the RAM model including PCA3 would result in 18,345 fewer repeat PBx. It would be budget-neutral in the unlikely hypothesis of no complications or no costs incurred by complications and would save €1.7 million for a mean cost for complications of €100/procedure or €5 million for a mean cost for complications of €280/procedure, calculated based on US and Canadian data. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study are the theoretical nature of the analysis and the fact that PCA3 distributions had to be derived from other sources. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of RAM expert recommendations including PCA3 for repeat PBx decisions in clinical practice in France would reduce the number of repeat PBx and control costs.

An audit of tumour marker utilization in Greece.

INTRODUCTION: Several international organizations have published guidelines for the correct use of tumour markers in clinical practice. However, there are reports that clinicians do not adhere to these guidelines in clinical practice. The present study constitutes an audit of TM use in a major hospital in Northern Greece. Purpose of our study is to quantify the magnitude of inappropriate TM requests as well as the corresponding financial cost. METHODS: We examined retrospectively all TM requests between 10/2006 and 07/2007 in the department of biochemistry of our hospital. The tumour markers included in our study were: CA 19-9, CA 125, CA 15-3, AFP, NSE, CYFRA 21-1 and CEA. RESULTS: We found 9782 inappropriate TM orders. For five of them - namely CA 125, AFP, CA 19-9, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE - the proper requests were below 10%. There were 5.6 TM requests per patient. The total cost for inappropriate TM reached 239,748 euro, which corresponds to a monthly cost of 23,974euro. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable inappropriateness in the utilization of TM in Greece which corresponds to significant financial cost. Various measures should be applied in order to increase the cost-effectiveness of TM use.

Tumor markers and lung cancer: guidelines in a cost-limited medical organization.

The aim of our study was to evaluate the cost of the tumor marker assays most widely used in pneumological practice and the effectiveness of the percentage of DRG-based reimbursements absorbed by these assays. For this purpose we assessed the cost of lung tumor marker assays in Emilia Romagna compared to the DRG-based reimbursement of inpatients affected by lung diseases in whom the use of tumor markers is indicated. As an example, we evaluated the cost/effectiveness of the CEA assay in the differential diagnosis of 68 pleural effusions from 46 patients (20 benign diseases, 26 malignant). Because the CEA assay was not a substitute for cytology when this was not diagnostic, 41.3% of the resources were not efficiently spent. If the marker assay had been performed only in cases with negative cytology, we could have spared 14 of 46 tests. Moreover, since the expense lies predominantly in the cost of reagents (81.23%), we suggest as a routine procedure to collect and store samples for tumor marker assay in all cases; the test should be performed in a selected population of patients with negative cytology and "suspect" clinical outcome.