ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2021
The Value of a New Diagnostic Test for Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis in Early Stage of Development.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe.European urology · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic Testing for Prostate Cancer-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing a Prostatype P-Score Biomarker Approach to Standard Clinical Practice.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Health Economic Evidence for Liquid- and Tissue-based Molecular Tests that Inform Decisions on Prostate Biopsies and Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.European urology open science · 2021Review
- A monolithic single-chip point-of-care platform for metabolomic prostate cancer detection.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis is an unpleasant and sometimes painful procedure with a detection rate as low as around 50%. Consequently, an accurate blood-based test would be highly desirable to improve the predictive accuracy. However, the clinical value of a new blood test for diagnosing prostate cancer depends on its sensitivity and specificity, in relation to the selected target population.
objectiveThe aim of this analysis was to investigate the health-economic value of introducing a new and more accurate diagnostic blood-based test to identify men in need of a biopsy to diagnose prostate cancer.
methodWe developed a Discrete Event Simulation Model with outputs including number of biopsies, cancer diagnosis, treatments and prostate cancer deaths. The analysis was performed from a health care perspective. It used epidemiologic data, treatment patterns, and health care costs from the Swedish region Skåne (population of 1.3 million). A 90% sensitivity and specificity of the new test was assumed.
resultsAmong 31,250 men, age 50-69 years, 16.4% had a PSA between 3.0 and 9.9 µg/L and 28.9% a PSA of 2.0-9.9 µg/L. Testing men with PSA 3.0-9.9 µg/L, as in current clinical practice, decreased the number of biopsies by 3595, detected 61 more cancers, resulting in and two more fatalities and subsequently a loss of 14 QALYs. Cost offsets could justify a test value of SEK 4996. Testing a larger population, PSA 2.0-9.9 µg/L prevented 6 deaths, added 50 QALYs, and could justify a value of the test of SEK 5165, given a value of health of SEK 500,000 per QALY.
conclusionA new blood-based test for prostate cancer has a significant potential to reduce the number of biopsies needed, resulting in reduced health care costs and improve patient care.
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.