IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0246674.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using the Stockholm3 test

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas A Karlsson
  • Shuang Hao
  • Alexandra Jauhiainen
  • K Miriam Elfström
  • Lars Egevad
  • Tobias Nordström
  • Emelie Heintz
  • Mark S Clements

Abstract

Objectives: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer found that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, however the costs and harms from screening may outweigh any mortality reduction. Compared with screening using the PSA test alone, using the Stockholm3 Model (S3M) as a reflex test for PSA ≥ 1 ng/mL has the same sensitivity for Gleason score ≥ 7 cancers while the relative positive fractions for Gleason score 6 cancers and no cancer were 0.83 and 0.56, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of the S3M test has not previously been assessed. Methods: We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from a lifetime societal perspective. Using a microsimulation model, we simulated for: (i) no prostate cancer screening; (ii) screening using the PSA test; and (iii) screening using the S3M test as a reflex test for PSA values ≥ 1, 1.5 and 2 ng/mL. Screening strategies included quadrennial re-testing for ages 55–69 years performed by a general practitioner. Discounted costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results: Comparing S3M with a reflex threshold of 2 ng/mL with screening using the PSA test, S3M had increased effectiveness, reduced lifetime biopsies by 30%, and increased societal costs by 0.4%. Relative to the PSA test, the S3M reflex thresholds of 1, 1.5 and 2 ng/mL had ICERs of 170,000, 60,000 and 6,000 EUR/QALY, respectively. The S3M test was more cost-effective at higher biopsy costs. Conclusions: Prostate cancer screening using the S3M test for men with an initial PSA ≥ 2.0 ng/mL was cost-effective compared with screening using the PSA test alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas A Karlsson & Shuang Hao & Alexandra Jauhiainen & K Miriam Elfström & Lars Egevad & Tobias Nordström & Emelie Heintz & Mark S Clements, 2021. "The cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using the Stockholm3 test," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0246674
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246674
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246674
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246674&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0246674?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0246674. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.