SpringerLink
Log in

Response to Comment on Delphi Analysis of Relevant Comparators in a Cost-Effectiveness Model of Prostate Cancer Screening

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 17 July 2021

The Original Research Article was published on 02 April 2021

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ziouani S, Granados D, Borget I. How to select the best comparator? An international economic evaluation guidelines comparison. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A471–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Excellence C. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013 [Internet]. 2013.

  3. (EUnetHTA). ENfHTA. Methods for health economic evaluations. 2015. https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Methods_for_health_economic_evaluations.pdf.

  4. England PH. Prostate cancer risk management programme: benefits and risks of PSA testing. 2016.

  5. Parker C, Gillessen S, Heidenreich A, Horwich A. Cancer of the prostate: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(suppl_5):v69–77.

  6. Nam RK, Oliver TK, Vickers AJ, Thompson I, Kantoff PW, Parnes HL, et al. Prostate-specific antigen test for prostate cancer screening: American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(5):315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJJJ. The US Preventive Services Task Force 2017 draft recommendation statement on screening for prostate cancer: an invitation to review and comment. JAMA. 2017;317(19):1949–50.

  8. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):100–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilt TJ, Harris RP, Qaseem A. Screening for cancer: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2021;162(10):718–25.

  10. O'Mahony JF. Comment on Keeney et al.’s Delphi analysis of relevant comparators in a cost-effectiveness model of prostate cancer screening. PharmacoEconomics. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01061-2.

  11. Keeney E, Thom H, Turner E, et al. Using a modified delphi approach to gain consensus on relevant comparators in a cost-effectiveness model: application to prostate cancer screening. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:589–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01009-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics Bristol (HEB), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 1NU, UK

    Edna Keeney, Howard Thom & Sabina Sanghera

  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and The University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Howard Thom & Richard M. Martin

  3. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PR, UK

    Emma Turner & Richard M. Martin

  4. MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Richard M. Martin

Authors
  1. Edna Keeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Howard Thom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emma Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard M. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sabina Sanghera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edna Keeney.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was funded by Cancer Research UK and the UK Department of Health (C11043/A4286, C18281/A8145, C18281/A11326, and C18281/A15064, C18281/A24432). SS is funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) fellowship (PDF-2017-10-008). HT and RMM were supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funding source was not involved in the design of the study, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data or the writing of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

RMM and ET report grants from Cancer Research UK, during the conduct of the study. HT has received personal consulting fees from Novartis Pharma AG, Pfizer Inc, Roche Holding AG and Janssen Pharmaceutica. The funding received by HT was not related to the present publication or in a similar clinical area. EK has received personal consulting fees from Novartis Pharma AG, Pfizer Inc, and Roche Holding AG. The funding received by EK was not related to the present publication or in a similar clinical area.

Author Contributions

All authors were involved in drafting and approving the manuscript.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keeney, E., Thom, H., Turner, E. et al. Response to Comment on Delphi Analysis of Relevant Comparators in a Cost-Effectiveness Model of Prostate Cancer Screening. PharmacoEconomics 39, 969–970 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01062-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01062-1

Search

Navigation