Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35031092›Full record

SynthesisValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2022

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis.

Edna Keeney, Howard Thom, Emma Turner, Richard M Martin, Josie Morley, Sabina Sanghera

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: From Diagnosis to Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edna KeeneyHealth Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK. Electronic address: edna.keeney@bristol.ac.uk.
Howard ThomHealth Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
Emma TurnerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
Richard M MartinPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
Josie MorleyHealth Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
Sabina SangheraHealth Economics Bristol, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK.
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/S036709/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecent innovations in prostate cancer diagnosis include new biomarkers and more accurate biopsy methods. This study assesses the evidence base on cost-effectiveness of these developments (eg, Prostate Health Index and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]-guided biopsy) and identifies areas of improvement for future cost-effectiveness models.

methodsA systematic review using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment databases, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and United Kingdom National Screening Committee guidance was performed, between 2009 and 2021. Relevant data were extracted on study type, model inputs, modeling methods and cost-effectiveness conclusions, and results narratively synthesized.

resultsA total of 22 model-based economic evaluations were included. A total of 11 compared the cost-effectiveness of new biomarkers to prostate-specific antigen testing alone and all found biomarkers to be cost saving. A total of 8 compared MRI-guided biopsy methods to transrectal ultrasound-guided methods and found MRI-guided methods to be most cost-effective. Newer detection methods showed a reduction in unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The most cost-effective follow-up strategy in men with a negative initial biopsy was uncertain. Many studies did not model for stage or grade of cancer, cancer progression, or the entire testing and treatment pathway. Few fully accounted for uncertainty.

conclusionsThis review brings together the cost-effectiveness literature for novel diagnostic methods in prostate cancer, showing that most studies have found new methods to be more cost-effective than standard of care. Several limitations of the models were identified, however, limiting the reliability of the results. Areas for further development include accurately modeling the impact of early diagnostic tests on long-term outcomes of prostate cancer and fully accounting for uncertainty.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkersBiopsyCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsBiomarkerscost-effectiveness modelsdiagnosisprostate cancersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35031092
PMCPMC8752463
OpenAlexW3167117945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.