Literature DB >> 7540297

Cost-effectiveness analysis in early detection of prostate cancer: an evaluation of six screening strategies in a randomly selected population of 2,400 men.

O Gustafsson1, P Carlsson, U Norming, C R Nyman, H Svensson.   

Abstract

Based on the findings in an early detection study for prostate cancer [Gustafsson et al.: J Urol 148:1827-1831, 1992] using digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on 6 screening strategies, namely: 1) DRE of all individuals; 2) TRUS of all individuals; 3) DRE, TRUS, and PSA analysis followed by reexamination of individuals with PSAs > or = 7 ng/ml; 4) DRE of individuals with PSAs of > or = 4 ng/ml; 5) TRUS of individuals with PSAs of > or = 4 ng/ml; 6) DRE and PSA analysis followed by TRUS on individuals with PSAs > or = 4 ng/ml. The detection rates of prostate cancer using these 6 strategies were 2.4%, 3.3%, 3.6%, 2.0%, 2.6%, and 3.2%, respectively. Except for costs per detected cancer, costs were also calculated per detected small cancer (< or = 1.5 cm) and per detected cancer treated for cure. The cost calculations were based on total costs, i.e., direct plus indirect costs. When the 6 strategies were compared, taking into account the detection rate of cancers treated for cure and cost-effectiveness with respect to cancers treated for cure, strategies 1), 2), 3), and 4) were ruled out as less favorable than the remaining 2 strategies. TRUS of individuals with PSAs > or = 4 ng/ml (strategy 5) was the most cost-effective strategy and detected 80% of the cancers actually treated for cure. Screening with DRE and PSA analysis followed by TRUS of individuals with PSAs > or = 4 ng/ml (strategy 6) had a somewhat lower cost-effectiveness, but detected 90% of the cancers treated for cure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7540297     DOI: 10.1002/pros.2990260605

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  5 in total

1.  Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; R Rodríguez-Ibeas; M F Hutter; R Lorente; C Juárez; M Pinillos
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-05-20

Review 2.  Clinical and economic considerations in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  E Varenhorst; P Carlsson; K Pedersen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  C Hamashima; K Yoshida
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.674

4.  Benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening - predictions of the ONCOTYROL prostate cancer outcome and policy model.

Authors:  Nikolai Mühlberger; Kristijan Boskovic; Murray D Krahn; Karen E Bremner; Willi Oberaigner; Helmut Klocker; Wolfgang Horninger; Gaby Sroczynski; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 5.  Cost analysis of screening for, diagnosing, and staging prostate cancer based on a systematic review of published studies.

Authors:  Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonardo A Stroud; Yanjing Chen
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 2.830

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.