Rafael E de Feria Cardet1, Michael S Hofman2, Tatiana Segard3, Jackie Yim1, Scott Williams4, Roslyn J Francis5, Mark Frydenberg6, Nathan Lawrentschuk7, Declan G Murphy8, Richard De Abreu Lourenco9. 1. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 2. Prostate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia. 4. Prostate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Camperdown, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia; School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. 6. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Cabrini Institute, Cabrini Health, Malvern, Australia. 7. Prostate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; EJ Whitten Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Prostate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 9. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: richard.deabreulourenco@chere.uts.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Before integrating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) into routine care, it is important to assess if the benefits justify the differences in resource use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PSMA-PET/CT when compared with conventional imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using data from the proPSMA study. proPSMA included patients with high-risk prostate cancer assigned to conventional imaging or 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with planned health economics data collected. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an Australian societal perspective. INTERVENTION: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (CT and bone scan). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome from proPSMA was diagnostic accuracy (nodal and distant metastases). This informed a decision tree analysis of the cost per accurate diagnosis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The estimated cost per scan for PSMA PET/CT was AUD$1203, which was less than the conventional imaging cost at AUD$1412. PSMA PET/CT was thus dominant, having both better accuracy and a lower cost. This resulted in a cost of AUD$959 saved per additional accurate detection of nodal disease, and AUD$1412 saved for additional accurate detection of distant metastases. The results were most sensitive to variations in the number of men scanned for each 68Ga-PSMA-11 production run. Subsequent research is required to assess the long-term costs and benefits of PSMA PET/CT-directed care. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT has lower direct comparative costs and greater accuracy compared to conventional imaging for initial staging of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This provides a compelling case for adopting PSMA PET/CT into clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: The proPSMA study demonstrated that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) better detects disease that has spread beyond the prostate compared with conventional imaging. Our analysis shows that PSMA PET/CT is also less costly than conventional imaging for the detection of disease spread. This research was presented at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Scientific Meeting in October 2020.
BACKGROUND: Before integrating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) into routine care, it is important to assess if the benefits justify the differences in resource use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PSMA-PET/CT when compared with conventional imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using data from the proPSMA study. proPSMA included patients with high-risk prostate cancer assigned to conventional imaging or 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with planned health economics data collected. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an Australian societal perspective. INTERVENTION: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (CT and bone scan). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome from proPSMA was diagnostic accuracy (nodal and distant metastases). This informed a decision tree analysis of the cost per accurate diagnosis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The estimated cost per scan for PSMA PET/CT was AUD$1203, which was less than the conventional imaging cost at AUD$1412. PSMA PET/CT was thus dominant, having both better accuracy and a lower cost. This resulted in a cost of AUD$959 saved per additional accurate detection of nodal disease, and AUD$1412 saved for additional accurate detection of distant metastases. The results were most sensitive to variations in the number of men scanned for each 68Ga-PSMA-11 production run. Subsequent research is required to assess the long-term costs and benefits of PSMA PET/CT-directed care. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT has lower direct comparative costs and greater accuracy compared to conventional imaging for initial staging of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This provides a compelling case for adopting PSMA PET/CT into clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: The proPSMA study demonstrated that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) better detects disease that has spread beyond the prostate compared with conventional imaging. Our analysis shows that PSMA PET/CT is also less costly than conventional imaging for the detection of disease spread. This research was presented at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Scientific Meeting in October 2020.
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Jeremie Calais; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Kirsten L Greene; James L Gulley; Michael Hofman; Bridget F Koontz; Daniel W Lin; Michael J Morris; Steve P Rowe; Trevor J Royce; Simpa Salami; Bital Savir-Baruch; Sandy Srinivas; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Lena M Mittlmeier; Matthias Brendel; Leonie Beyer; Nathalie L Albert; Andrei Todica; Mathias J Zacherl; Vera Wenter; Annika Herlemann; Alexander Kretschmer; Stephan T Ledderose; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Wolfgang G Kunz; Jens Ricke; Peter Bartenstein; Harun Ilhan; Marcus Unterrainer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Géraldine Pignot; Clément Brun; Maxime Tourret; François Lannes; Sami Fakhfakh; Stanislas Rybikowski; Thomas Maubon; Marion Picini; Jochen Walz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 3.661