A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia
Andrew Keller (),
Christian Gericke,
Jennifer A. Whitty,
John Yaxley,
Boon Kua,
Geoff Coughlin and
Troy Gianduzzo
Additional contact information
Andrew Keller: University of Queensland
Christian Gericke: University of Queensland
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
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, vol. 15, issue 1, No 11, 95-111
Abstract:
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.
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)
Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0278-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0278-6
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0278-6
Access Statistics for this article
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson
More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().