ArticleCancer medicine2023
Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolving role of biomarkers beyond prostate‑specific antigen in refining prostate cancer screening: From blood‑based tests to urinary and genetic markers (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Economic evaluation of prostate cancer risk assessment methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using population data.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe current prostate cancer (PCa) screening standard of care (SOC) leads to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment because decisions are guided by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, which have low specificity in the gray zone (3-10 ng/mL). New risk assessment tools (RATs) aim to improve biopsy decision-making. We constructed a modeling framework to assess new RATs in men with gray zone PSA from the British Columbia healthcare system's perspective.
methodsWe evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a new RAT used in biopsy-naïve men aged 50+ with a PSA of 3-10 ng/mL using a time-dependent state-transition model. The model was informed by engaging patient partners and using linked administrative health data, supplemented with published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the probability of the RAT being cost-effective were calculated. Probabilistic analysis was used to assess parameter uncertainty.
resultsIn the base case, a RAT based on an existing biomarker's characteristics was a dominant strategy associated with a cost savings of $44 and a quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain of 0.00253 over 18 years of follow-up. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability that using a RAT is cost-effective relative to the SOC was 73%. Outcomes were sensitive to RAT costs and accuracy, especially the detection rate of high-grade PCa. Results were also impacted by PCa prevalence and assumptions about undetected PCa survival.
conclusionsOur findings showed that a more accurate RAT to guide biopsy can be cost-effective. Our proposed general model can be used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of any novel RAT.
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.