Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Sanghera S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5773135 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models.

Sanghera Sabina S Coast Joanna J Martin Richard M RM Donovan Jenny L JL Mohiuddin Syed S

BMC cancer 20180118 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>To identify models of prostate cancer used to assess the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening str ...[more]

PMID: 29347916

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough safe and effective anti-retrovirals (ARVs) are readily available, non-adherence to ARVs is highly prevalent among people living with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (PLWHA). Different adherence-improving interventions have been developed and examined through decision analytic model-based health technology assessments. This systematic review aimed to review and appraise the decision analytical economic models developed to assess ARV adherence-improvement interventions.MethodsThe review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022270039), and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Relevant studies were identified through searches in six generic and specialized bibliographic databases, i.e. PubMed, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, PsycINFO, Health Economic Evaluations Database, tufts CEA registry and EconLit, from their inception to 23 October 2022. The cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions is represented by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The quality of studies was assessed using the quality of the health economics studies (QHES) instrument. Data were narratively synthesized in the form of tables and texts. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a permutation matrix was used for quantitative data synthesis rather than a meta-analysis.ResultsFifteen studies, mostly conducted in North America (8/15 studies), were included in the review. The time horizon ranged from a year to a lifetime. Ten out of 15 studies used a micro-simulation, 4/15 studies employed Markov and 1/15 employed a dynamic model. The most commonly used interventions reported include technology based (5/15), nurse involved (2/15), directly observed therapy (2/15), case manager involved (1/15) and others that involved multi-component interventions (5/15). In 1/15 studies, interventions gained higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with cost savings. The interventions in 14/15 studies were more effective but at a higher cost, and the overall ICER was well below the acceptable threshold mentioned in each study, indicating the interventions could potentially be implemented after careful interpretation. The studies were graded as high quality (13/15) or fair quality (2/15), with some methodological inconsistencies reported.ConclusionCounselling and smartphone-based interventions are cost-effective, and they have the potential to reduce the chronic adherence problem significantly. The quality of decision models can be improved by addressing inconsistencies in model selection, data inputs incorporated into models and uncertainty assessment methods.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent innovations in prostate cancer diagnosis include new biomarkers and more accurate biopsy methods. This study assesses the evidence base on cost-effectiveness of these developments (eg, Prostate Health Index and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-guided biopsy) and identifies areas of improvement for future cost-effectiveness models.MethodsA systematic review using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment databases, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and United Kingdom National Screening Committee guidance was performed, between 2009 and 2021. Relevant data were extracted on study type, model inputs, modeling methods and cost-effectiveness conclusions, and results narratively synthesized.ResultsA total of 22 model-based economic evaluations were included. A total of 11 compared the cost-effectiveness of new biomarkers to prostate-specific antigen testing alone and all found biomarkers to be cost saving. A total of 8 compared MRI-guided biopsy methods to transrectal ultrasound-guided methods and found MRI-guided methods to be most cost-effective. Newer detection methods showed a reduction in unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The most cost-effective follow-up strategy in men with a negative initial biopsy was uncertain. Many studies did not model for stage or grade of cancer, cancer progression, or the entire testing and treatment pathway. Few fully accounted for uncertainty.ConclusionsThis review brings together the cost-effectiveness literature for novel diagnostic methods in prostate cancer, showing that most studies have found new methods to be more cost-effective than standard of care. Several limitations of the models were identified, however, limiting the reliability of the results. Areas for further development include accurately modeling the impact of early diagnostic tests on long-term outcomes of prostate cancer and fully accounting for uncertainty.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.ResultsIn total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

Project description:ImportanceUS guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018.Study selectionRandomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice.ResultsOf 19 eligible trials (12 781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I2 = 67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I2 = 75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I2 = 60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I2 = 36%; low quality).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter.

Project description:Background: Big data and real-world data (RWD) have been increasingly used to measure the effectiveness and costs in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). However, the characteristics and methodologies of CEA based on big data and RWD remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to review the characteristics and methodologies of the CEA studies based on big data and RWD and to compare the characteristics and methodologies between the CEA studies with or without decision-analytic models. Methods: The literature search was conducted in Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (as of June 2020). Full CEA studies with an incremental analysis that used big data and RWD for both effectiveness and costs written in English were included. There were no restrictions regarding publication date. Results: 70 studies on CEA using RWD (37 with decision-analytic models and 33 without) were included. The majority of the studies were published between 2011 and 2020, and the number of CEA based on RWD has been increasing over the years. Few CEA studies used big data. Pharmacological interventions were the most frequently studied intervention, and they were more frequently evaluated by the studies without decision-analytic models, while those with the model focused on treatment regimen. Compared to CEA studies using decision-analytic models, both effectiveness and costs of those using the model were more likely to be obtained from literature review. All the studies using decision-analytic models included sensitivity analyses, while four studies no using the model neither used sensitivity analysis nor controlled for confounders. Conclusion: The review shows that RWD has been increasingly applied in conducting the cost-effectiveness analysis. However, few CEA studies are based on big data. In future CEA studies using big data and RWD, it is encouraged to control confounders and to discount in long-term research when decision-analytic models are not used.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.

Project description:ObjectivesReview and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).DesignSystematic review.SettingPubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.ParticipantsCost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.InterventionsDifferent surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.ResultsTwelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.ConclusionsDespite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.Prospero registration numberCRD42021246811.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets