Sabina Sanghera1, Richard M Martin1,2, Emma L Turner1, Howard Thom1, Edna Keeney3, Roman Gulati4, Fredrik Wiklund5, Eleanor I Walsh1, Jenny L Donovan1, Freddie Hamdy6, David E Neal6, J Athene Lane1, Mark S Clements5. 1. Department of Population Health Sciences, Health Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 1NU, UK. 2. NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, Health Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 1-5 Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 1NU, UK. edna.keeney@bristol.ac.uk. 4. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most guidelines in the UK, Europe and North America do not recommend organised population-wide screening for prostate cancer. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening can reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality, but there are concerns about overdiagnosis, overtreatment and economic value. The aim was therefore to assess the cost effectiveness of eight potential screening strategies in the UK. METHODS: We used a cost-utility analysis with an individual-based simulation model. The model was calibrated to data from the 10-year follow-up of the Cluster Randomised Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP). Treatment effects were modelled using data from the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. The participants were a hypothetical population of 10 million men in the UK followed from age 30 years to death. The strategies were: no screening; five age-based screening strategies; adaptive screening, where men with an initial prostate-specific antigen level of < 1.5 ng/mL are screened every 6 years and those above this level are screened every 4 years; and two polygenic risk-stratified screening strategies. We assumed the use of pre-biopsy multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for men with prostate-specific antigen ≥ 3 ng/mL and combined transrectal ultrasound-guided and targeted biopsies. The main outcome measures were projected lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years from a National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: All screening strategies increased costs compared with no screening, with the majority also increasing quality-adjusted life-years. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000 or £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a once-off screening at age 50 years was optimal, although this was sensitive to the utility estimates used. Although the polygenic risk-stratified screening strategies were not on the cost-effectiveness frontier, there was evidence to suggest that they were less cost ineffective than the alternative age-based strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Of the prostate-specific antigen-based strategies compared, only a once-off screening at age 50 years was potentially cost effective at current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. An additional follow-up of CAP to 15 years may reduce uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of the screening strategies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most guidelines in the UK, Europe and North America do not recommend organised population-wide screening for prostate cancer. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening can reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality, but there are concerns about overdiagnosis, overtreatment and economic value. The aim was therefore to assess the cost effectiveness of eight potential screening strategies in the UK. METHODS: We used a cost-utility analysis with an individual-based simulation model. The model was calibrated to data from the 10-year follow-up of the Cluster Randomised Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP). Treatment effects were modelled using data from the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. The participants were a hypothetical population of 10 million men in the UK followed from age 30 years to death. The strategies were: no screening; five age-based screening strategies; adaptive screening, where men with an initial prostate-specific antigen level of < 1.5 ng/mL are screened every 6 years and those above this level are screened every 4 years; and two polygenic risk-stratified screening strategies. We assumed the use of pre-biopsy multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for men with prostate-specific antigen ≥ 3 ng/mL and combined transrectal ultrasound-guided and targeted biopsies. The main outcome measures were projected lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years from a National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: All screening strategies increased costs compared with no screening, with the majority also increasing quality-adjusted life-years. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000 or £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a once-off screening at age 50 years was optimal, although this was sensitive to the utility estimates used. Although the polygenic risk-stratified screening strategies were not on the cost-effectiveness frontier, there was evidence to suggest that they were less cost ineffective than the alternative age-based strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Of the prostate-specific antigen-based strategies compared, only a once-off screening at age 50 years was potentially cost effective at current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. An additional follow-up of CAP to 15 years may reduce uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of the screening strategies.
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Richard C Wender; Ruth B Etzioni; Ian M Thompson; Anthony V D'Amico; Robert J Volk; Durado D Brooks; Chiranjeev Dash; Idris Guessous; Kimberly Andrews; Carol DeSantis; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Richard M Martin; Jenny L Donovan; Emma L Turner; Chris Metcalfe; Grace J Young; Eleanor I Walsh; J Athene Lane; Sian Noble; Steven E Oliver; Simon Evans; Jonathan A C Sterne; Peter Holding; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Peter Brindle; Naomi J Williams; Elizabeth M Hill; Siaw Yein Ng; Jessica Toole; Marta K Tazewell; Laura J Hughes; Charlotte F Davies; Joanna C Thorn; Elizabeth Down; George Davey Smith; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Marianne Månsson; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Sigrid V Carlsson; Kirsi M Talala; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Ulf H Stenman; Rebecka Arnsrud Godtman; Karin Stinesen Kollberg; Sue M Moss; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Andreas Huber; Theodorus van der Kwast; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Chris Bangma; Harry J De Koning; Fritz H Schröder; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; J A Lane; D E Neal; M Mason; C Metcalfe; E Walsh; J M Blazeby; T J Peters; P Holding; S Bonnington; T Lennon; L Bradshaw; D Cooper; P Herbert; J Howson; A Jones; N Lyons; E Salter; P Thompson; S Tidball; J Blaikie; C Gray; P Bollina; J Catto; A Doble; A Doherty; D Gillatt; R Kockelbergh; H Kynaston; A Paul; P Powell; S Prescott; D J Rosario; E Rowe; M Davis; E L Turner; R M Martin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Liisa Määttänen; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Matti Hakama; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Gunnar Aus; Andreas Huber; Theo H van der Kwast; Ron H N van Schaik; Harry J de Koning; Sue M Moss; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anssi Auvinen; Antti Rannikko; Kimmo Taari; Paula Kujala; Tuomas Mirtti; Anu Kenttämies; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Terho Lehtimäki; Niku Oksala; Kim Pettersson; Teuvo L Tammela Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Derek J Rosario; J Athene Lane; Chris Metcalfe; Jenny L Donovan; Andy Doble; Louise Goodwin; Michael Davis; James W F Catto; Kerry Avery; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-01-09