Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models

Authors: Sabina Sanghera, Joanna Coast, Richard M. Martin, Jenny L. Donovan, Syed Mohiuddin

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is ongoing debate about the harms and benefits of a national prostate cancer screening programme. Several model-based cost-effectiveness analyses have been developed to determine whether the benefits of prostate cancer screening outweigh the costs and harms caused by over-detection and over-treatment, and the different approaches may impact results.

Methods

To identify models of prostate cancer used to assess the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening strategies, a systematic review of articles published since 2006 was conducted using the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Medline, EMBASE and HTA databases. The NICE website, UK National Screening website, reference lists from relevant studies were also searched and experts contacted. Key model features, inputs, and cost-effectiveness recommendations were extracted.

Results

Ten studies were included. Four of the studies identified some screening strategies to be potentially cost-effective at a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml, including single screen at 55 years, annual or two yearly screens starting at 55 years old, and delayed radical treatment. Prostate cancer screening was modelled using both individual and cohort level models. Model pathways to reflect cancer progression varied widely, Gleason grade was not always considered and clinical verification was rarely outlined. Where quality of life was considered, the methods used did not follow recommended practice and key issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment were not addressed by all studies.

Conclusion

The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening is unclear. There was no consensus on the optimal model type or approach to model prostate cancer progression. Due to limited data availability, individual patient-level modelling is unlikely to increase the accuracy of cost-effectiveness results compared with cohort-level modelling, but is more suitable when assessing adaptive screening strategies. Modelling prostate cancer is challenging and the justification for the data used and the approach to modelling natural disease progression was lacking. Country-specific data are required and recommended methods used to incorporate quality of life. Influence of data inputs on cost-effectiveness results need to be comprehensively assessed and the model structure and assumptions verified by clinical experts.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Doble A, Goodwin L, Davis M, Catto JW, Avery K, Neal DE, et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7894.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–22.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, Blazeby JM, Peters TJ, Holding P, Bonnington S, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Maattanen L, Lilja H, 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. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Fu R, Gleitsmann K, Koenig HC, Lam C, Maltz A, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(11):762–71.CrossRefPubMed
10.
NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2013.
11.
CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. In: CADTH methods and guidelines. 4th ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2017.
12.
Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis. New Zealand: PHARMAC; 2015.
13.
Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2014.
14.
Medical Services Advisory Committee. Technical guidelines for preparing assessment reports for the medical services advisory committee – medical service type: therapeutic. Australia: Australian Government: Department of Health; 2016.
15.
National Board of Health. In: H KFS, editor. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment; 2007.
16.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing a submission to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Australia: Australian Government Department of Health; 2016.
17.
NICE. Diagnostic assessment Programme manual. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
18.
CRD. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. NewYork: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.
19.
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: The Cochrane Library; 2011.
20.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(36):iii–v. ix-xi, 1-158CrossRefPubMed
22.
Shteynshlyuger A, Andriole GL. Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185(3):828–32.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Chilcott J, Hummel S, Mildred M. Option Appraisal: Screening for Prostate Cancer. Sheffield: ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2010.
24.
Hummel S, Chilcott J. Option Appraisal: Screening for prostate cancer model update. Sheffield: In: ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2013.
25.
Heijnsdijk EA, de Carvalho TM, Auvinen A, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Villers A, Paez A, Moss SM, Tammela TL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):366.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Pataky R, Gulati R, Etzioni R, Black P, Chi KN, Coldman AJ, Pickles T, Tyldesley S, Peacock S. Is prostate cancer screening cost-effective? A microsimulation model of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for British Columbia, Canada. Int J Cancer. 2014;135(4):939–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Kobayashi T, Goto R, Ito K, Mitsumori K. Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(6):783–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Roth JA, Gulati R, Gore JL, Cooperberg MR, Etzioni R. Economic analysis of prostate-specific antigen screening and selective treatment strategies. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(7):890–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Keller A, Gericke C, Whitty JA, Yaxley J, Kua B, Coughlin G, Gianduzzo T. A cost-utility analysis of prostate cancer screening in Australia. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(1):95–111.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Martin AJ, Lord SJ, Verry HE, Stockler MR, Emery JD. Risk assessment to guide prostate cancer screening decisions: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Med J Aust. 2013;198(10):546–50.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Wolstenholme J, Leal J, Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Martin R, Lane A, Frankel S, Nobel S: Modelling the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using the ProtecT treatment trial and CAP, the cancer research UK funded extension study: a preliminary report.2011.
32.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
33.
Imamura T, Yasunaga H. Economic evaluation of prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen. Int J Urol. 2008;15(4):285–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lao C, Brown C, Rouse P, Edlin R, Lawrenson R. Economic evaluation of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review. Future Oncol. 2015;11(3):467–77.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models
Authors
Sabina Sanghera
Joanna Coast
Richard M. Martin
Jenny L. Donovan
Syed Mohiuddin
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3974-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Treatment in the STAMPEDE era for castrate resistant prostate cancer in the UK: ongoing challenges and underappreciated clinical problems

Research article

AKT1 restricts the invasive capacity of head and neck carcinoma cells harboring a constitutively active PI3 kinase activity

Research article

Lymphovascular invasion and extranodal tumour extension are risk indicators of breast cancer related lymphoedema: an observational retrospective study with long-term follow-up

Research article

A novel approach to monitoring the efficacy of anti-tumor treatments in animal models: combining functional MRI and texture analysis

Case report

Intravascular NK/T-cell lymphoma, Epstein–Barr virus positive with multiorgan involvement: a clinical dilemma

Research article

Low expression of c-Myc protein predicts poor outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after resection
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits