{"title":"Methodological approaches in the economic evaluation of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics: a systematic scoping review.","authors":"Tuukka Hakkarainen, Haavisto Ira, Leskelä Riikka-Leena","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2519744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic scoping review aimed to identify and analyze current methodological approaches used in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics (pCDx), highlighting methodological gaps and challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (January 2009-March 2023). Included studies were model-based EEs, methodological papers, or reviews specifically addressing prognostic or predictive CDx. Data extraction followed the modified CHEERS checklist. Results were synthesized narratively across six methodological domains. No formal risk of bias assessment was done per scoping review conventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-eight studies were included, of which 60 were model-based EEs. Most studies utilized Markov cohort models (37%) or decision tree-Markov hybrids (30%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were the main outcome (88%). Only 15% of studies derived clinical utility from randomized controlled trials, and fewer than half explicitly modeled diagnostic accuracy. Methodological limitations included inconsistent modeling of real-world test-treatment pathways, insufficient consideration of pretest probabilities, diagnostic thresholds, and inadequate uncertainty analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review identified variability and methodological gaps in economic evaluations of pCDx. Standardizing evaluation methods, integrating real-world evidence, and systematically considering the diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty could improve the robustness of pCDx evaluations. Limitations of this study included overrepresentation of breast cancer studies.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>OSF Registries (22 February 2023) DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/GVFMQ.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1037-1049"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2519744","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic scoping review aimed to identify and analyze current methodological approaches used in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics (pCDx), highlighting methodological gaps and challenges.
Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (January 2009-March 2023). Included studies were model-based EEs, methodological papers, or reviews specifically addressing prognostic or predictive CDx. Data extraction followed the modified CHEERS checklist. Results were synthesized narratively across six methodological domains. No formal risk of bias assessment was done per scoping review conventions.
Results: Eighty-eight studies were included, of which 60 were model-based EEs. Most studies utilized Markov cohort models (37%) or decision tree-Markov hybrids (30%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were the main outcome (88%). Only 15% of studies derived clinical utility from randomized controlled trials, and fewer than half explicitly modeled diagnostic accuracy. Methodological limitations included inconsistent modeling of real-world test-treatment pathways, insufficient consideration of pretest probabilities, diagnostic thresholds, and inadequate uncertainty analyses.
Conclusions: This review identified variability and methodological gaps in economic evaluations of pCDx. Standardizing evaluation methods, integrating real-world evidence, and systematically considering the diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty could improve the robustness of pCDx evaluations. Limitations of this study included overrepresentation of breast cancer studies.
Registration: OSF Registries (22 February 2023) DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/GVFMQ.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.