The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3974-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Additional file 1: Search Strategy Methods. Further details on eligibility criteria, search terms, study selection process, data extraction, quality assessment and data synthesis methods. (DOCX 26 kb)12885_2017_3974_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Additional file 2: Term used for conservative management. A summary table of the terms and definitions of conservative management used (DOCX 12 kb)12885_2017_3974_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Prostate Cancer Incidence Statistics [ http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/incidence#heading-Nine]. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
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
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
NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2013.
CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. In: CADTH methods and guidelines. 4th ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2017.
Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis. New Zealand: PHARMAC; 2015.
Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2014.
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.
National Board of Health. In: H KFS, editor. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment; 2007.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing a submission to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Australia: Australian Government Department of Health; 2016.
NICE. Diagnostic assessment Programme manual. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
CRD. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. NewYork: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: The Cochrane Library; 2011.
Chilcott J, Hummel S, Mildred M. Option Appraisal: Screening for Prostate Cancer. Sheffield: ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2010.
Hummel S, Chilcott J. Option Appraisal: Screening for prostate cancer model update. Sheffield: In: ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2013.
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
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.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
- Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models
Richard M. Martin
Jenny L. Donovan
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie
Mail Icon II