BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer surveillance is invasive, intensive and costly. Patients with low grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are at high risk of recurrence. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this model is to compare the cost of a strategy to alternate surveillance with cystoscopy and a urine marker, Bladder EpiCheck, to standard surveillance. METHODS: A decision tree model was built using TreeAge Pro Healthcare to compare standard surveillance (Standard) with a modified surveillance incorporating Bladder EpiCheck. The model was based on 2 years of surveillance. Outcomes were obtained from literature. Costs were obtained from US and 9 European countries. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The efficacy of the model was equivalent in terms of recurrence for each arm with median recurrence rate of 22%. When setting marker price at 200 local currency, the marker arm was less expensive in the USA, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Austria and UK by 154€ to 329€ per patient, for a 2-year period. Cost was higher in France, Spain, and Germany by 33–103€. Cost parity was achieved with marker price between 148€ and $421. Marker cost and specificity have the greatest impact on the overall model cost. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy alternating the urine marker Bladder EpiCheck with cystoscopy in the surveillance of patients with low grade intermediate risk bladder cancer is cost equivalent in the US and European countries when the marker is priced 148€ –$421, as a result of the marker’s high specificity (86%). Prospective studies will be necessary to validate these findings.
Cost comparison in hip fracture treatment
