ArticleInternational journal of cancer2014
Is prostate cancer screening cost-effective? A microsimulation model of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for British Columbia, Canada.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models.BMC cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluating Molecular Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Lung Cancer: When Is a Biomarker Ready for Clinical Use? An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Guideline
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in the UK: A Decision Model Analysis Based on the CAP Trial.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Trial
- Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of PSA-based mass screening: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial combined with register data.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Present status of prostate cancer diagnosis, limitations, challenges, and future endeavors.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Cost effectiveness analysis of prostate cancer screening strategies in Germany: A microsimulation study.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen testing according to Australian guidelines.International journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Health Care Costs Attributable to Prostate Cancer in British Columbia, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- China county-based prostate specific antigen screening for prostate cancer and a cost-effective analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Article
- Assessment of harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: A micro-simulation study of 230 scenarios.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020Article
- Epidemiological and Economic Evaluation of a Pilot Prostate Cancer Screening Program.Prostate cancer · 2020Article
- A natural history model for planning prostate cancer testing: Calibration and validation using Swedish registry data.PloS one · 2019Article
- Microsimulation Modeling in Oncology.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2018Review
- Amyloid positron emission tomography candidates may focus more on benefits than risks of results disclosure.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Article
- Benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening - predictions of the ONCOTYROL prostate cancer outcome and policy model.BMC public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer may reduce mortality, but it incurs considerable risk of over diagnosis and potential harm to quality of life. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PSA screening, with and without adjustment for quality of life, for the British Columbia (BC) population. We adapted an existing natural history model using BC incidence, treatment, cost and mortality patterns. The modeled mortality benefit of screening derives from a stage-shift mechanism, assuming mortality reduction consistent with the European Study of Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer. The model projected outcomes for 40-year-old men under 14 combinations of screening ages and frequencies. Cost and utility estimates were explored with deterministic sensitivity analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness of regular screening ranged from $36,300/LYG, for screening every four years from ages 55 to 69 years, to $588,300/LYG, for screening every two years from ages 40 to 74 years. The marginal benefits of increasing screening frequency to 2 years or starting screening at age 40 years were small and came at significant cost. After utility adjustment, all screening strategies resulted in a loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); however, this result was very sensitive to utility estimates. Plausible outcomes under a range of screening strategies inform discussion of prostate cancer screening policy in BC and similar jurisdictions. Screening may be cost-effective, but the sensitivity of results to utility values suggests individual preferences for quality versus quantity of life should be a key consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.