Literature DB >> 33630863

The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using the Stockholm3 test.

Andreas A Karlsson1,2, Shuang Hao1,2, Alexandra Jauhiainen3, K Miriam Elfström4, Lars Egevad5, Tobias Nordström1,6, Emelie Heintz7, Mark S Clements1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer found that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, however the costs and harms from screening may outweigh any mortality reduction. Compared with screening using the PSA test alone, using the Stockholm3 Model (S3M) as a reflex test for PSA ≥ 1 ng/mL has the same sensitivity for Gleason score ≥ 7 cancers while the relative positive fractions for Gleason score 6 cancers and no cancer were 0.83 and 0.56, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of the S3M test has not previously been assessed.
METHODS: We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from a lifetime societal perspective. Using a microsimulation model, we simulated for: (i) no prostate cancer screening; (ii) screening using the PSA test; and (iii) screening using the S3M test as a reflex test for PSA values ≥ 1, 1.5 and 2 ng/mL. Screening strategies included quadrennial re-testing for ages 55-69 years performed by a general practitioner. Discounted costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.
RESULTS: Comparing S3M with a reflex threshold of 2 ng/mL with screening using the PSA test, S3M had increased effectiveness, reduced lifetime biopsies by 30%, and increased societal costs by 0.4%. Relative to the PSA test, the S3M reflex thresholds of 1, 1.5 and 2 ng/mL had ICERs of 170,000, 60,000 and 6,000 EUR/QALY, respectively. The S3M test was more cost-effective at higher biopsy costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer screening using the S3M test for men with an initial PSA ≥ 2.0 ng/mL was cost-effective compared with screening using the PSA test alone.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33630863      PMCID: PMC7906342          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246674

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  25 in total

1.  Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniel Osses; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Elisabeth M Wever; Anssi Auvinen; Jonas Hugosson; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Arnauld Villers; Alvaro Páez; Sue M Moss; Marco Zappa; Teuvo L J Tammela; Tuukka Mäkinen; Sigrid Carlsson; Ida J Korfage; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Suzie J Otto; Gerrit Draisma; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Jan F M Verbeek; Theo van der Kwast; Intan P Kümmerlin; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert J L H van Leenders
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data.

Authors:  E A M Heijnsdijk; T M de Carvalho; A Auvinen; M Zappa; V Nelen; M Kwiatkowski; A Villers; A Páez; S M Moss; T L J Tammela; F Recker; L Denis; S V Carlsson; E M Wever; C H Bangma; F H Schröder; M J Roobol; J Hugosson; H J de Koning
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-12-13       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Budget Impact Analysis of Cancer Screening: A Methodological Review.

Authors:  Beate Jahn; Jovan Todorovic; Marvin Bundo; Gaby Sroczynski; Annette Conrads-Frank; Ursula Rochau; Gottfried Endel; Ingrid Wilbacher; Nikoletta Malbaski; Niki Popper; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Dan Greenberg; Josephine Mauskopf; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.561

6.  The Stockholm-3 Model for Prostate Cancer Detection: Algorithm Update, Biomarker Contribution, and Reflex Test Potential.

Authors:  Peter Ström; Tobias Nordström; Markus Aly; Lars Egevad; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PROGENSA® prostate cancer antigen 3 assay and the Prostate Health Index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Amanda Nicholson; James Mahon; Angela Boland; Sophie Beale; Kerry Dwan; Nigel Fleeman; Juliet Hockenhull; Yenal Dundar
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  Does a novel diagnostic pathway including blood-based risk prediction and MRI-targeted biopsies outperform prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen and systematic prostate biopsies? - protocol of the randomised study STHLM3MRI.

Authors:  Tobias Nordström; Fredrik Jäderling; Stefan Carlsson; Markus Aly; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-03-18       Impact factor: 176.079

Review 10.  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
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  3 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stockholm 3 Testing Compared to PSA as the Primary Blood Test in the Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathway: A Decision Tree Approach.

Authors:  Bettina Wulff Risør; Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez; Jacob Fredsøe; Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen; Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis.

Authors:  Edna Keeney; Howard Thom; Emma Turner; Richard M Martin; Josie Morley; Sabina Sanghera
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-09-22       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 3.  Updates in Prostate Cancer Research and Screening in Men at Genetically Higher Risk.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Bancroft; Holly Ni Raghallaigh; Elizabeth C Page; Rosalind A Eeles
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2021-10-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.