Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stockholm 3 Testing Compared to PSA as the Primary Blood Test in the Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathway: A Decision Tree Approach

[1]  M. Roobol,et al.  Prostate-specific Antigen Testing as Part of a Risk-Adapted Early Detection Strategy for Prostate Cancer: European Association of Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021. , 2021, European urology.

[2]  Christopher P. Filson,et al.  Enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis and infection-related complications following prostate biopsy , 2021, World Journal of Urology.

[3]  L. Egevad,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using the Stockholm3 test , 2021, PloS one.

[4]  F. Bruyère,et al.  The negative aftermath of prostate biopsy: prophylaxis, complications and antimicrobial stewardship: results of the global prevalence study of infections in urology 2010–2019 , 2021, World Journal of Urology.

[5]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Assessment of harms, benefits, and cost‐effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: A micro‐simulation study of 230 scenarios , 2020, Cancer medicine.

[6]  S. Skeie,et al.  Effects of replacing PSA with Stockholm3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in a healthcare system – the Stavanger experience , 2020, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[7]  B. Udeh.  Economic Evaluation Studies. , 2020, Chest.

[8]  Robert Thomas,et al.  Patterns of infection following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in a regional New South Wales Centre. , 2020, The Australian journal of rural health.

[9]  N. Vasdev,et al.  The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS: analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data 2008–2019 , 2020, BJU international.

[10]  P. Chiang,et al.  Comparisons of cancer detection rate and complications between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy approaches - a single center preliminary study , 2019, BMC Urology.

[11]  M. Cheng,et al.  Type A aortic dissection involving the superior mesenteric artery with peripheral malperfusion managed with a hybrid approach: a case report. , 2019, Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi.

[12]  M. Cheung,et al.  Emergency attendances and hospitalisations for complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: a five-year retrospective multicentre study. , 2019, Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi.

[13]  J. Barentsz,et al.  Complications and Adverse Events of Three Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Target Biopsy Techniques in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Among Men with Prior Negative Biopsies: Results from the FUTURE Trial, a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial. , 2019, European Urology Oncology.

[14]  N. Ibrahim,et al.  A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Targeted versus Empirical Prophylactic Antibiotics in the Prevention of Infective Complications following Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy , 2019, Annals of African medicine.

[15]  Marc-André Smith,et al.  Effectiveness of fosfomycin tromethamine prophylaxis in preventing infection following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: Results from a large Canadian cohort. , 2019, Journal of global antimicrobial resistance.

[16]  C. Ng,et al.  Outcomes of transperineal and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. , 2019, Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi.

[17]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. , 2019, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[18]  P. Ström,et al.  Prostate Cancer Diagnostics Using a Combination of the Stockholm3 Blood Test and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. , 2018, European urology.

[19]  G. Guerra,et al.  Rectal culture-directed antibiotic prophylaxis before transrectal prostate biopsy: Reduced infectious complications and healthcare costs , 2018, Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition).

[20]  S. Pautler,et al.  A Population-Based Cohort Study of the Impact of Infectious Complications Requiring Hospitalization after Prostate Biopsy on Radical Prostatectomy Surgical Outcomes. , 2018, Urology.

[21]  Martin Eklund,et al.  The Stockholm-3 Model for Prostate Cancer Detection: Algorithm Update, Biomarker Contribution, and Reflex Test Potential. , 2018, European urology.

[22]  S. Hou,et al.  Clinical comparison of the efficacy of three different bowel preparation methods on the infectious complications following transrectal ultrasonography‐guided prostate biopsy in nursing practice , 2018, Journal of clinical nursing.

[23]  J. Donovan,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models , 2018, BMC Cancer.

[24]  Martin Eklund,et al.  The Stockholm-3 (STHLM3) Model can Improve Prostate Cancer Diagnostics in Men Aged 50-69 yr Compared with Current Prostate Cancer Testing. , 2016, European urology focus.

[25]  H. Grönberg,et al.  Effects of increasing the PSA cutoff to perform additional biomarker tests before prostate biopsy , 2017, BMC Urology.

[26]  J. Cashy,et al.  Evaluation of targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective cohort trial , 2017, BMC Infectious Diseases.

[27]  A. Kafkaslı,et al.  Infective complications in patients after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and the role of ciprofloxacin resistant Escherichia coli colonization in rectal flora. , 2017, Turkish journal of urology.

[28]  Jim C Hu,et al.  Indications, Utilization and Complications Following Prostate Biopsy: New York State Analysis , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[29]  L. Hooft,et al.  Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? , 2017, European urology.

[30]  Marco Borghesi,et al.  Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. , 2017, European urology.

[31]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[32]  V. Anttila,et al.  Increase of prostate biopsy-related bacteremic complications in southern Finland, 2005–2013: a population-based analysis , 2016, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[33]  S. Alkhateeb,et al.  The prevalence of urinary tract infection, or urosepsis following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in a subset of the Saudi population and patterns of susceptibility to flouroquinolones , 2016, Saudi medical journal.

[34]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[35]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[36]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[37]  R. Nasr,et al.  Incidence of sepsis following transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy at a tertiary-care medical center in Lebanon , 2016, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[38]  Martin Eklund,et al.  Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[39]  A. Cheng,et al.  The state of TRUS biopsy sepsis: readmissions to Victorian hospitals with TRUS biopsy‐related infection over 5 years , 2015, BJU international.

[40]  David C. Miller,et al.  A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Hospitalizations after Prostate Biopsy. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[41]  Kristina M Rabarison,et al.  Economic Evaluation Enhances Public Health Decision Making , 2015, Front. Public Health.

[42]  O. Visnjevac,et al.  Reduction in hospital admissions with the addition of prophylactic intramuscular ceftriaxone before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies. , 2015, Urology.

[43]  M. Emberton,et al.  Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound‐guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: A database analysis in England , 2015, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[44]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.

[45]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2015 , 2015, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[46]  T. Tammela,et al.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up , 2014, The Lancet.

[47]  Samuel K. Park,et al.  Fluoroquinolone resistant rectal colonization predicts risk of infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[48]  M. Aerts,et al.  Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data , 2014, Archives of Public Health.

[49]  Pär Stattin,et al.  Nationwide population based study of infections after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[50]  F. Schröder,et al.  Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. , 2014, European urology.

[51]  Emily Vertosick,et al.  The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[52]  P. Stattin,et al.  Prostate Cancer Mortality in Areas With High and Low Prostate Cancer Incidence , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[53]  C Fraser,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2013, Health technology assessment.

[54]  David Moher,et al.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[55]  Z. Tandoğdu,et al.  Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. , 2013, European urology.

[56]  S. Berndt,et al.  Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[57]  D Andrew Loblaw,et al.  Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[58]  G. Nabi,et al.  Population-based linkage of health records to detect urological complications and hospitalisation following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies in men suspected of prostate cancer , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[59]  J. Pépin,et al.  Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? , 2012, European urology.

[60]  J. Raman,et al.  Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits – experience from 1000 consecutive cases , 2012, BJU international.

[61]  M. Roobol,et al.  Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. , 2012, European urology.

[62]  Chris Metcalfe,et al.  Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[63]  H Ballentine Carter,et al.  Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[64]  Michel Bolla,et al.  [EAU guidelines on prostate cancer]. , 2009, Actas urologicas espanolas.

[65]  Nicolas Barry Delongchamps,et al.  Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[66]  B. Dezső,et al.  The prevalence of prostate carcinoma and its precursor in Hungary: an autopsy study. , 2005, European urology.

[67]  J. Crowley,et al.  Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[68]  John L. Smith.  Tables , 1969, Neuromuscular Disorders.

[69]  N. Dubrawsky.  Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[70]  S. Wilson.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[71]  L. Larsson.  Kidney stone analysis. , 2019, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.