Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Urology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Cost implications of PSA screening differ by age

Authors: Karthik Rao, Stella Liang, Michael Cardamone, Corinne E. Joshu, Kyle Marmen, Nrupen Bhavsar, William G. Nelson, H. Ballentine Carter, Michael C. Albert, Elizabeth A. Platz, Craig E. Pollack

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Multiple guidelines seek to alter rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening. The costs borne by payers associated with PSA-based screening for men of different age groups—including the costs of screening and subsequent diagnosis, treatment, and adverse events—remain uncertain. We sought to develop a model of PSA costs that could be used by payers and health care systems to inform cost considerations under a range of different scenarios.

Methods

We determined the prevalence of PSA screening among men aged 50 and higher using 2013-2014 data from a large, multispecialty group, obtained reimbursed costs associated with screening, diagnosis, and treatment from a commercial health plan, and identified transition probabilities for biopsy, diagnosis, treatment, and complications from the literature to generate a cost model. We estimated annual total costs for groups of men ages 50-54, 55-69, and 70+ years, and varied annual prostate cancer screening prevalence in each group from 5 to 50% and tested hypothetical examples of different test characteristics (e.g., true/false positive rate).

Results

Under the baseline screening patterns, costs of the PSA screening represented 10.1% of the total costs; costs of biopsies and associated complications were 23.3% of total costs; and, although only 0.3% of all screen eligible patients were treated, they accounted for 66.7% of total costs. For each 5-percentage point decrease in PSA screening among men aged 70 and older for a single calendar year, total costs associated with prostate cancer screening decreased by 13.8%. For each 5-percentage point decrease in PSA screening among men 50-54 and 55-69 years old, costs were 2.3% and 7.3% lower respectively.

Conclusions

With constrained financial resources and with national pressure to decrease use of clinically unnecessary PSA-based prostate cancer screening, there is an opportunity for cost savings, especially by focusing on the downstream costs disproportionately associated with screening men 70 and older.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference The Advisory Board Company. 2013 Accountable Payment Survey. The Advisory Board Company. 2013 Accountable Payment Survey.
2.
go back to reference Eckstrom E, Feeny DH, Walter LC, et al. Individualizing cancer screening in older adults: a narrative review and framework for future research. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:292–8.CrossRefPubMed Eckstrom E, Feeny DH, Walter LC, et al. Individualizing cancer screening in older adults: a narrative review and framework for future research. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:292–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Wilson LS, Tesoro R, Elkin EP, et al. Cumulative cost pattern comparison of prostate cancer treatments. Cancer. 2007;109:518–27.CrossRefPubMed Wilson LS, Tesoro R, Elkin EP, et al. Cumulative cost pattern comparison of prostate cancer treatments. Cancer. 2007;109:518–27.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–34.CrossRefPubMed Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–34.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ. The US Preventive Services Task Force 2017 Draft Recommendation Statement on Screening for Prostate Cancer. JAMA. 2017;317(19):1949–50.CrossRefPubMed Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ. The US Preventive Services Task Force 2017 Draft Recommendation Statement on Screening for Prostate Cancer. JAMA. 2017;317(19):1949–50.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2017. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2017. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017.
8.
go back to reference Jemal A, Ma J, Siegel R, et al. Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates 2 Years After the US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations Against Screening. JAMA Oncology. 2016;2(12):1657.CrossRefPubMed Jemal A, Ma J, Siegel R, et al. Prostate Cancer Incidence Rates 2 Years After the US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations Against Screening. JAMA Oncology. 2016;2(12):1657.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, et al. Prostate Cancer Incidence and PSA Testing Patterns in Relation to USPSTF Screening Recommendations. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2054–61.CrossRefPubMed Jemal A, Fedewa SA, Ma J, et al. Prostate Cancer Incidence and PSA Testing Patterns in Relation to USPSTF Screening Recommendations. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2054–61.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Sammon JD, Abdollah F, Choueiri TK, et al. Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening After 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. JAMA. 2015;315(19):2077–9.CrossRef Sammon JD, Abdollah F, Choueiri TK, et al. Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening After 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. JAMA. 2015;315(19):2077–9.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Drazer MW, Huo D, Eggener SE. National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2416–23.CrossRefPubMed Drazer MW, Huo D, Eggener SE. National Prostate Cancer Screening Rates After the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Discouraging Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2416–23.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Prostate-specific antigen levels in the United States: implications of various definitions for abnormal. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1132–7.CrossRefPubMed Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Prostate-specific antigen levels in the United States: implications of various definitions for abnormal. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1132–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Andriole GL, Levin DL, Crawford ED, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:433–8.CrossRefPubMed Andriole GL, Levin DL, Crawford ED, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:433–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1117–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1117–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein J, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3379–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein J, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3379–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74.CrossRefPubMed D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2239–46.CrossRefPubMed Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2239–46.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Keegan KA, Dall’Era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer. 2012;118:3512–8.CrossRefPubMed Keegan KA, Dall’Era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer. 2012;118:3512–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Daneshgari F, Taylor GD, Miller GJ, et al. Computer simulation of the probability of detecting low volume carcinoma of the prostate with six random systematic core biopsies. Urology. 1995;45:604–9.CrossRefPubMed Daneshgari F, Taylor GD, Miller GJ, et al. Computer simulation of the probability of detecting low volume carcinoma of the prostate with six random systematic core biopsies. Urology. 1995;45:604–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Roth JA, Gulati R, Gore JL, et al. Economic analysis of prostate-specific antigen screening and selective treatment strategies. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(7):890–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Roth JA, Gulati R, Gore JL, et al. Economic analysis of prostate-specific antigen screening and selective treatment strategies. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(7):890–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Emanuel E, Tanden N, Altman S, et al. A systematic approach to containing health care spending. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:949–54.CrossRefPubMed Emanuel E, Tanden N, Altman S, et al. A systematic approach to containing health care spending. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:949–54.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals – HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:897–9.CrossRefPubMed Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals – HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:897–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Press MJ, Rajkumar R, Conway PH. Medicare’s new bundled payments: design, strategy, and evolution. JAMA. 2016;315:131–2.CrossRefPubMed Press MJ, Rajkumar R, Conway PH. Medicare’s new bundled payments: design, strategy, and evolution. JAMA. 2016;315:131–2.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Ma X, Wang R, Long JB, et al. The cost implications of prostate cancer screening in the Medicare population. Cancer. 2014;120:96–102.CrossRefPubMed Ma X, Wang R, Long JB, et al. The cost implications of prostate cancer screening in the Medicare population. Cancer. 2014;120:96–102.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed H, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92.CrossRefPubMed Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed H, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Simoneau A. Treatment and disease related complications of prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2006;8(Suppl):56–67. Simoneau A. Treatment and disease related complications of prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2006;8(Suppl):56–67.
28.
go back to reference Gurel B, Iwata T, Koh CM, et al. Molecular alterations in prostate cancer as diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic targets. Adv Anat Pathol. 2008;15:319–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gurel B, Iwata T, Koh CM, et al. Molecular alterations in prostate cancer as diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic targets. Adv Anat Pathol. 2008;15:319–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Choudury AD, Eeles R, Freedland SJ, et al. The role of genetic markers in the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2012;62:577–87.CrossRef Choudury AD, Eeles R, Freedland SJ, et al. The role of genetic markers in the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2012;62:577–87.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Salagierski M, Schalken JA. Molecular diagnosis of prostate cancer: PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion. J Urol. 2012;187:795–801.CrossRefPubMed Salagierski M, Schalken JA. Molecular diagnosis of prostate cancer: PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion. J Urol. 2012;187:795–801.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Ankerst DP, Xia J, Thompson IM Jr, et al. Precision medicine in active surveillance for prostate cancer: development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1083–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ankerst DP, Xia J, Thompson IM Jr, et al. Precision medicine in active surveillance for prostate cancer: development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1083–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:2329–45.CrossRefPubMed Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:2329–45.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement. A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2563–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement. A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2563–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Drazer MW, Huo D, Schonberg MA, et al. Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1736–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Drazer MW, Huo D, Schonberg MA, et al. Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1736–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Sundi D, Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, et al. Pathological examination of radical prostatectomy specimens in men with very low risk disease at biopsy reveals distinct zonal distribution of cancer in black American men. J Urol. 2014;191:60–7.CrossRefPubMed Sundi D, Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, et al. Pathological examination of radical prostatectomy specimens in men with very low risk disease at biopsy reveals distinct zonal distribution of cancer in black American men. J Urol. 2014;191:60–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost implications of PSA screening differ by age
Authors
Karthik Rao
Stella Liang
Michael Cardamone
Corinne E. Joshu
Kyle Marmen
Nrupen Bhavsar
William G. Nelson
H. Ballentine Carter
Michael C. Albert
Elizabeth A. Platz
Craig E. Pollack
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Urology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-018-0344-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Urology 1/2018 Go to the issue