IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PSA-based mass screening: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial combined with register data

Author

Listed:
  • Neill Booth
  • Pekka Rissanen
  • Teuvo L J Tammela
  • Paula Kujala
  • Ulf-Håkan Stenman
  • Kimmo Taari
  • Kirsi Talala
  • Anssi Auvinen

Abstract

In contrast to earlier studies which have used modelling to perform cost-effectiveness analysis, this study links data from a randomised controlled trial with register data from nationwide registries to reveal new evidence on costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of organised mass prostate-cancer screening based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with individual-level data on health-care costs from comprehensive registers and register data on real-world effectiveness from the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC), following 80,149 men from 1996 through 2015. The study examines cost-effectiveness in terms of overall mortality and, in addition, in terms of diagnosed men’s mortality from prostate cancer and mortality with but not from prostate cancer. Neither arm of the FinRSPC was clearly more cost-effective in analysis in terms of overall mortality. Organised screening in the FinRSPC could be considered cost-effective in terms of deaths from prostate cancer: averting just over one death per 1000 men screened. However, even with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of below 20,000€ per death avoided, this result should not be considered in isolation. This is because mass screening in this trial also resulted in increases in death with, but not from, prostate cancer: with over five additional deaths per 1000 men screened. Analysis of real-world data from the FinRSPC reveals new evidence of the comparative effectiveness of PSA-based screening after 20 years of follow-up, suggesting the possibility of higher mortality, as well as higher healthcare costs, for screening-arm men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer but who do not die from it. These findings should be corroborated or contradicted by similar analyses using data from other trials, in order to reveal if more diagnosed men have also died in the screening arms of other trials of mass screening for prostate cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Neill Booth & Pekka Rissanen & Teuvo L J Tammela & Paula Kujala & Ulf-Håkan Stenman & Kimmo Taari & Kirsi Talala & Anssi Auvinen, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of PSA-based mass screening: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial combined with register data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224479
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224479
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224479&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224479?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glick, Henry A. & Doshi, Jalpa A. & Sonnad, Seema S. & Polsky, Daniel, 2014. "Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199685028.
    2. John Mullahy, 2019. "Health and evidence in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(10), pages 1163-1165, October.
    3. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    4. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    5. S Birch, 1997. "As a Matter of Fact: Evidence-based Decision-making "Unplugged"," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1997-02, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    6. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Baid, Drishti, 2019. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of incentives as a tool for prevention of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 340-350.
    2. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.
    3. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    4. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    5. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    6. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    7. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    8. Annabel Sandra Mueller-Stierlin & Uemmueguelsuem Dinc & Katrin Herder & Julia Walendzik & Matthias Schuetzwohl & Thomas Becker & Reinhold Kilian, 2022. "The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Integrated Mental Health Care Programme in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Fattore, Giovanni & Federici, Carlo & Drummond, Michael & Mazzocchi, Mario & Detzel, Patrick & Hutton, Zsuzsa V & Shankar, Bhavani, 2021. "Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions: Does one size fit all?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1238-1246.
    10. A-La Park & Eui-Hyoung Hwang & Man-Suk Hwang & In Heo & Sun-Young Park & Jun-Hwan Lee & In-Hyuk Ha & Jae-Heung Cho & Byung-Cheul Shin, 2021. "Cost-Effectiveness of Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care, Compared with Usual Care Only for People with Neck Pain following Traffic Accidents: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-13, September.
    11. Sarah J Stock & Margaret Horne & Merel Bruijn & Helen White & Kathleen A Boyd & Robert Heggie & Lisa Wotherspoon & Lorna Aucott & Rachel K Morris & Jon Dorling & Lesley Jackson & Manju Chandiramani & , 2021. "Development and validation of a risk prediction model of preterm birth for women with preterm labour symptoms (the QUIDS study): A prospective cohort study and individual participant data meta-analysi," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo, 2018. "Loss Aversion, Expectations and Anchoring in the BDM Mechanism," MPRA Paper 85635, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Cochrane, M. & Watson, P.M. & Timpson, H. & Haycox, A. & Collins, B. & Jones, L. & Martin, A. & Graves, L.E.F., 2019. "Systematic review of the methods used in economic evaluations of targeted physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 156-167.
    14. Ben F M Wijnen & Karin Pos & Eva Velthorst & Frederike Schirmbeck & Hoi Yau Chan & Lieuwe de Haan & Mark van der Gaag & Silvia M A A Evers & Filip Smit, 2018. "Economic evaluation of brief cognitive behavioural therapy for social activation in recent-onset psychosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, November.
    15. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Game form recognition in preference elicitation, cognitive abilities, and cognitive load," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 49-65.
    16. Kathrin Steinbeisser & Larissa Schwarzkopf & Elmar Graessel & Hildegard Seidl, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of a non-pharmacological treatment vs. “care as usual” in day care centers for community-dwelling older people with cognitive impairment: results from the German randomized controll," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 825-844, August.
    17. Colin H. Ridyard & Dyfrig A. Hughes & DIRUM Team, 2015. "Taxonomy for Methods of Resource Use Measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 372-378, March.
    18. Giovanna Elisa Calabrò & Sara Boccalini & Donatella Panatto & Caterina Rizzo & Maria Luisa Di Pietro & Fasika Molla Abreha & Marco Ajelli & Daniela Amicizia & Angela Bechini & Irene Giacchetta & Piero, 2022. "The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Michael J. Fell & Alexandra Schneiders & David Shipworth, 2019. "Consumer Demand for Blockchain-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Electricity Trading in the United Kingdom: An Online Survey Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-25, October.
    20. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.