A cost-utility analysis of prostate cancer screening in Australia
File version
Author(s)
Gericke, Christian
Whitty, Jennifer A
Yaxley, John
Kua, Boon
Coughlin, Geoff
Gianduzzo, Troy
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
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.
Journal Title
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
15
Issue
1
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
© 2017 Springer. This is an electronic version of an article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, 15 (1), pp. 95-111. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is available online at: http://link.springer.com/ with the open URL of your article.
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Health services and systems
Public health
Applied economics
Social Sciences
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Economics
Health Care Sciences & Services
Persistent link to this record
Citation
Keller, A; Gericke, C; Whitty, JA; Yaxley, J; Kua, B; Coughlin, G; Gianduzzo, T, A cost-utility analysis of prostate cancer screening in Australia, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, 15 (1), pp. 95-111