A literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of prostate-specific antigen test in prostate cancer screening

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 327-342

  Garg, Vishvas ^a   Gu, Ning Yan ^a   Borrego, Matthew E ^a   Raisch, Dennis W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness analysis; digital rectal examination; health insurance coverage; prostate cancer; prostate cancer screening; prostate specific antigen test; systematic review; transrectal ultrasound; USPSTF guidelines

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION TREE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MORBIDITY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN TEST; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TUMOR BIOPSY; UNITED STATES;

AGE FACTORS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; UNITED STATES; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 84885158200     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erp.13.26     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J. Clin. 63(1), 11-30 (2013)
2. Stokes ME, Ishak J, Proskorovsky I, Black LK, Huang Y. Lifetime economic burden of prostate cancer. BMC Health Serv. Res. 11, 349 (2011)
3. Katz A. Quality of life for men with prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs. 30(4), 302-308 (2007)
4. Reeve BB, Potosky AL, Smith AW et al. Impact of cancer on health-related quality of life of older Americans. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101(12), 860-868 (2009)
5. Garg V, Raisch DW, Selig JP, Thompson TA. Health disparities in clinical practice patterns for prostate cancer screening by geographic regions in the United States: a multilevel modeling analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 16(2), 193-203 (2013)
6. Hughes E, Control CFD. Surveillance for Certain Health Behaviors Among States and Selected Local Areas: United States 2008. Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), US Department of Health and Human Services, GA, USA (2010)
7. Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence? JAMA 289(11), 1414-1420 (2003)
8. Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 157(2), 120-134 (2012). •• Latest recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) against the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for prostate cancer
9. Walsh PC. Re: Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. J. Urol. 188(4), 1181 (2012)
10. Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 155(11), 762-771 (2011). •• Describes evidence on which the USPSTF based its recommendations against the PSA test to screen for prostate cancer.
11. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al.; Methods Work Group, Third US Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am. J. Prev. Med. 20(3 Suppl), 21-35 (2001)
12. Pollack CE, Noronha G, Green GE, Bhavsar NA, Carter HB. Primary care providers? response to the US Preventive Services Task Force draft recommendations on screening for prostate cancer. Arch. Intern. Med. 172(8), 668-670 (2012)
13. Pollack CE, Platz EA, Bhavsar NA et al. Primary care providers? perspectives on discontinuing prostate cancer screening. Cancer 118(22), 5518-5524 (2012). • Primary care provider perspectives on the USPSTF recommendations against the PSA test to screen for prostate cancer
14. US Public Law. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, §2702. 124 Stat. 119, 318-319 (2010). • Provision of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that empowers the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to cancel health insurance coverage for the PSA test
15. Moran WP, Cohen SJ, Preisser JS, Wofford JL, Shelton BJ, McClatchey MW. Factors influencing use of the prostate-specific antigen screening test in primary care. Am. J. Manag. Care 6(3), 315-324 (2000)
16. Merrill RM. Demographics and healthrelated factors of men receiving prostatespecific antigen screening in Utah. Prev. Med. 33(6), 646-652 (2001)
17. Finney Rutten LJ, Meissner HI, Breen N, Vernon SW, Rimer BK. Factors associated with men's use of prostate-specific antigen screening: evidence from Health Information National Trends Survey. Prev. Med. 40(4), 461-468 (2005)
18. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1996). • Describes the significance of cost-effectiveness analysis
19. Aspinall SL, Good CB, Glassman PA, Valentino MA. The evolving use of cost-effectiveness analysis in formulary management within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Med. Care 43(7 Suppl), 20-26 (2005)
20. Siegel JE. Cost-effectiveness analysis in US healthcare decision-making: where is it going? Med. Care 43(7 Suppl), 1-4 (2005)
21. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jönsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 7(5), 518-528 (2004)
22. Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 12(4), 409-418 (2009)
23. Rascati K. Essentials of pharmacoeconomics. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 73(5), 94 (2009)
24. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices-overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med. Decis. Making 32(5), 667-677 (2012)
25. Hay JW, Smeeding J, Carroll NV et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost effectiveness analyses: issues and recommendations: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report-part I. Value Health 13(1), 3-7 (2010)
26. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health 15(6), 835-842 (2012)
27. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ 332(7543), 699-703 (2006)
28. Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp. Clin. Trials 29(2), 109-113 (2008)
29. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326(7400), 1167-1170 (2003)
30. Gustafsson O, Carlsson P, Norming U, Nyman CR, Svensson H. Cost-effectiveness analysis in early detection of prostate cancer: an evaluation of six screening strategies in a randomly selected population of 2,400 men. Prostate 26(6), 299-309 (1995)
31. Holmberg H, Carlsson P, Löfman O, Varenhorst E. Economic evaluation of screening for prostate cancer: a randomized population based programme during a 10-year period in Sweden. Health Policy 45(2), 133-147 (1998)
32. Sennfält K, Sandblom G, Carlsson P, Varenhorst E. Costs and effects of prostate cancer screening in Sweden-a 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 38(4), 291-298 (2004)
33. Launois R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies for screening prostatic cancer. Dev. Health Econ. Public Policy 1, 81-108 (1992)
34. Perez-Niddam K, Thoral F, Charvet-Protat S. Economic evaluation of a prostate cancer screening program in France: a decision model. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 32(2), 167-173 (1999)
35. Hamashima C, Yoshida K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prostate cancer screening. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 5(3), 111-117 (2000)
36. Kobayashi T, Goto R, Ito K, Mitsumori K. Prostate cancer screening strategies with re-screening interval determined by individual baseline prostate-specific antigen values are cost-effective. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 33(6), 783-789 (2007)
37. Bermúdez-Tamayo C, Martín Martín JJ, González Mdel P, Pérez Romero C. Cost-effectiveness of percent free PSA for prostate cancer detection in men with a total PSA of 4-10 ng/ml. Urol. Int. 79(4), 336-344 (2007)
38. Candas B, Cusan L, Gomez JL et al. Evaluation of prostatic specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate cancer. Prostate 45(1), 19-35 (2000)
39. Heijnsdijk E, Wever E, De Koning H. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening based on the European Randomized Study of Screening For Prostate Cancer. J. Urol. 187(Suppl. 4), e491 (2012)
40. Barry MJ, Fleming C, Coley CM, Wasson JH, Fahs MC, Oesterling JE. Should Medicare provide reimbursement for prostate-specific antigen testing for early detection of prostate cancer? Part IV: Estimating the risks and benefits of an early detection program. Urology 46(4), 445-461 (1995)
41. Gottlieb RH, Mooney C, Mushlin AI, Rubens DJ, Fultz PJ. The prostate: decreasing cost-effectiveness of biopsy with adVancing age. Invest. Radiol. 31(2), 84-90 (1996)
42. Coley CM, Barry MJ, Fleming C, Fahs MC, Mulley AG. Early detection of prostate cancer. Part II: Estimating the risks, benefits, and costs. American College of Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 126(6), 468-479 (1997)
43. Shteynshlyuger A, Andriole GL. Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 185(3), 828-832 (2011)
44. Littrup PJ, Kane RA, Mettlin CJ et al. Cost-effective prostate cancer detection. Reduction of low-yield biopsies. Investigators of the American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project. Cancer 74(12), 3146-3158 (1994)
45. Krahn MD, Mahoney JE, Eckman MH, Trachtenberg J, Pauker SG, Detsky AS. Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view. JAMA 272(10), 773-780 (1994)
46. Benoit RM, Grönberg H, Naslund MJ. A quantitative analysis of the costs and benefits of prostate cancer screening. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 4(3), 138-145 (2001)
47. Ellison L, Cheli CD, Bright S, Veltri RW, Partin AW. Cost-benefit analysis of total, free/total, and complexed prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer screening. Urology 60(4 Suppl. 1), 42-46 (2002)
48. Nichol MB, Wu J, Huang J, Denham D, Frencher SK, Jacobsen SJ. Cost-effectiveness of Prostate Health Index for prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 110(3), 353-362 (2012)
49. Benoit RM, Naslund MJ. Detection of latent prostate cancer from routine screening: comparison with breast cancer screening. Urology 46(4), 533-536; discussion 536 (1995)
50. Miller MC, O'Dowd GJ, Partin AW, Veltri RW. Contemporary use of complexed PSA and calculated percent free PSA for early detection of prostate cancer: impact of changing disease demographics. Urology 57(6), 1105-1111 (2001)
51. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 733-744 (2008)
52. Basch E, Oliver TK, Vickers A et al. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(24), 3020-3025 (2012)
53. Kawachi MH, Bahnson RR, Barry M et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer early detection. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 8(2), 240-262 (2010)
54. Colbert JA, Adler JN. Clinical decisions. Prostate cancer screening-polling results. N. Engl. J. Med. 367(17), e25 (2012)
55. Heijnsdijk EAM, Wever EM, Auvinen A et al. Quality-of-life effects of prostatespecific antigen screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 367(7), 595-605 (2012)
56. American Urological Association. AUA Disputes Panel's Recommendations on Prostate Cancer Screening. American Urological Association, MD, USA (2012). •• American Urological Association response to the USPSTF recommendations
57. Gomella LG, Liu XS, Trabulsi EJ et al. Screening for prostate cancer: the current evidence and guidelines controversy. Can. J. Urol. 18(5), 5875-5883 (2011)
58. Cosby R. PCF Submits Comments to USPSTF Regarding PSA-Based Screening. Prostate Cancer Foundation, CA, USA (2011)
59. Abrahamsson PA, Artibani W, Chapple CR, Wirth M. European Association of Urology position statement on screening for prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 56(2), 270-271 (2009)
60. Burford D, Kirby M, Austoker J. Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme Information for Primary Care. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield, UK (2009)
61. New Zealand Guidelines Group. Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening and Testing of Asymptomatic Men in New Zealand. New Zealand Guidelines Group, Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand (2004)
62. Naito S, Kakehi Y, Ito K; The Committee for Establishment of the Guidelines on Screening for Prostate Cancer and Japanese Urological Association. Updated Japanese Urological Association Guidelines on prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer in 2010. Int. J. Urol. 17, 830-838 (2010)