IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i1d10.1007_s40258-016-0278-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Keller

    (University of Queensland
    The Wesley Private Hospital)

  • Christian Gericke

    (University of Queensland
    The Wesley Private Hospital)

  • Jennifer A. Whitty

    (University of Queensland)

  • John Yaxley

    (The Wesley Private Hospital)

  • Boon Kua

    (The Wesley Private Hospital)

  • Geoff Coughlin

    (The Wesley Private Hospital)

  • Troy Gianduzzo

    (University of Queensland
    The Wesley Private Hospital)

Abstract

Background and Objectives The Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening reduces prostate cancer deaths compared with an age-matched control group. Utilising the prostate cancer detection rates from this study, we investigated the clinical and cost effectiveness of a similar PSA-based screening strategy for an Australian population of men aged 50–69 years. Methods A decision model that incorporated Markov processes was developed from a health system perspective. The base-case scenario compared a population-based screening programme with current opportunistic screening practices. Costs, utility values, treatment patterns and background mortality rates were derived from Australian data. All costs were adjusted to reflect July 2015 Australian dollars (A$). An alternative scenario compared systematic with opportunistic screening but with optimisation of active surveillance (AS) uptake in both groups. A discount rate of 5 % for costs and benefits was utilised. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of variable uncertainty on model outcomes. Results Our model very closely replicated the number of deaths from both prostate cancer and background mortality in the Göteborg study. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PSA screening was A$147,528. However, for years of life gained (LYGs), PSA-based screening (A$45,890/LYG) appeared more favourable. Our alternative scenario with optimised AS improved cost utility to A$45,881/QALY, with screening becoming cost effective at a 92 % AS uptake rate. Both modelled scenarios were most sensitive to the utility of patients before and after intervention, and the discount rate used. Conclusion PSA-based screening is not cost effective compared with Australia’s assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY. It appears more cost effective if LYGs are used as the relevant outcome, and is more cost effective than the established Australian breast cancer screening programme on this basis. Optimised utilisation of AS increases the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening dramatically.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Keller & Christian Gericke & Jennifer A. Whitty & John Yaxley & Boon Kua & Geoff Coughlin & Troy Gianduzzo, 2017. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 95-111, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0278-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0278-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0278-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0278-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.

    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. 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.
    2. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    3. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    4. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Jose L Burgos & Thomas L Patterson & Joshua S Graff-Zivin & James G Kahn & M Gudelia Rangel & M Remedios Lozada & Hugo Staines & Steffanie A Strathdee, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Sexual and Injection Risk Reduction Interventions among Female Sex Workers Who Inject Drugs in Two Very Distinct Mexican Border Cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    7. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2013. "Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.
    10. Boone, Jan, 2015. "Basic versus supplementary health insurance: Moral hazard and adverse selection," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 50-58.
    11. Eleanor Heather & Katherine Payne & Mark Harrison & Deborah Symmons, 2014. "Including Adverse Drug Events in Economic Evaluations of Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Drugs for Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of Economic Decision Analytic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 109-134, February.
    12. Manuel Gomes & Robert Aldridge & Peter Wylie & James Bell & Owen Epstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 3-D Computerized Tomography Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy for Imaging Symptomatic Gastroenterology Patients," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 107-117, April.
    13. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    14. Fan Yang & Colin Angus & Ana Duarte & Duncan Gillespie & Mark Sculpher & Simon Walker & Susan Griffin, 2021. "Comparing smoking cessation to screening and brief intervention for alcohol in distributional cost effectiveness analysis to explore the sensitivity of results to socioeconomic inequalities characteri," Working Papers 184cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    16. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    17. Fenna Arnoldussen & Mark J. Koetse & Sander M. de Bruyn & Onno Kuik, 2022. "What Are People Willing to Pay for Social Sustainability? A Choice Experiment among Dutch Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    19. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Catherine Haighton & Andrew Bryant & Frauke Becker & Melanie Steer & Sarah Lawson & Terry Aspray & Eugene M G Milne & Luke Vale & Elaine McColl & Martin White, 2019. "Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and p," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-31, January.
    20. Mahdi Gharaibeh & J. Lyle Bootman & Ali McBride & Jennifer Martin & Ivo Abraham, 2017. "Economic Evaluations of First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Pancreatic Cancer: A Critical Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 83-95, January.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0278-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.