Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33341285›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology2021

Is Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging Cost-effective in Prostate Cancer: An Analysis Informed by the proPSMA Trial.

Rafael E de Feria Cardet, Michael S Hofman, Tatiana Segard, Jackie Yim, Scott Williams, Roslyn J Francis, Mark Frydenberg, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Declan G Murphy, Richard De Abreu Lourenco

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessing Value for Money in Theranostic Nuclear Medicine: A Systematic Review.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Prostate specific membrane antigen focal ablation imaging (PSMA-FAB).Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An interpretableEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Evaluating [Journal of market access & health policy · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Model-based cost-effectiveness studies in nuclear medicine: an unavoidable fact of life.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Rafael E de Feria CardetCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Michael S HofmanProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Tatiana SegardSir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Jackie YimCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Scott WilliamsProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Camperdown, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Roslyn J FrancisSir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia; School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Mark FrydenbergDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Cabrini Institute, Cabrini Health, Malvern, Australia.
Nathan LawrentschukProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; EJ Whitten Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Declan G MurphyProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Richard De Abreu LourencoCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: richard.deabreulourenco@chere.uts.edu.au.
University of Technology Sydney · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUMonash University · AUSir Charles Gairdner Hospital · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Queensland · AUUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBefore integrating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) into routine care, it is important to assess if the benefits justify the differences in resource use.

objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of PSMA-PET/CT when compared with conventional imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using data from the proPSMA study. proPSMA included patients with high-risk prostate cancer assigned to conventional imaging or

interventionOUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome from proPSMA was diagnostic accuracy (nodal and distant metastases). This informed a decision tree analysis of the cost per accurate diagnosis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The estimated cost per scan for PSMA PET/CT was AUD$1203, which was less than the conventional imaging cost at AUD$1412. PSMA PET/CT was thus dominant, having both better accuracy and a lower cost. This resulted in a cost of AUD$959 saved per additional accurate detection of nodal disease, and AUD$1412 saved for additional accurate detection of distant metastases. The results were most sensitive to variations in the number of men scanned for each

conclusionsPSMA PET/CT has lower direct comparative costs and greater accuracy compared to conventional imaging for initial staging of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This provides a compelling case for adopting PSMA PET/CT into clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: The proPSMA study demonstrated that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) better detects disease that has spread beyond the prostate compared with conventional imaging. Our analysis shows that PSMA PET/CT is also less costly than conventional imaging for the detection of disease spread. This research was presented at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Scientific Meeting in October 2020.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisGallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingProstategallium 68 PSMA-11Gallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationHigh riskPositron emission tomography/computed tomographyProstate cancerProstate-specific membrane antigenStaging

Identifiers

PMID33341285
OpenAlexW3110862590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.