ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
A cost-benefit analysis of mass prostate cancer screening.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. 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.
- Associations between plasma and urinary heavy metal concentrations and the risk of prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The economic burden of prostate cancer in Iran: a cross-sectional cost-of-illness study.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Letter re: Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests (MCEDs) as a Potential Approach to Address Current Gaps in Cancer Screening.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) causes a substantial health and financial burden worldwide, underscoring the need for efficient mass screening approaches. This study attempts to evaluate the Net Cost-Benefit Index (NCBI) of PCa screening in Iran to offer insights for informed decision-making and resource allocation.
methodThe Net Cost-Benefit Index (NCBI) was calculated for four age groups (40 years and above) using a decision-analysis model. Two screening strategies, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) solely and PSA with Digital Rectal Examination (DRE), were evaluated from the health system perspective. A retrospective assessment of 1402 prostate cancer (PCa) patients' profiles were conducted, and direct medical and non-medical costs were calculated based on the 2021 official tariff rates, patient records, and interviews. The monetary value of mass screening was determined through Willingness to Pay (WTP) assessments, which served as a measure for the benefit aspect.
resultThe combined PSA and DRE strategy of screening is cost-effective, yields up to $3 saving in costs per case and emerges as the dominant strategy over PSA alone. Screening for men aged 70 and above does not meet economic justification, indicated by a negative Net Cost-Benefit Index (NCBI). The 40-49 age group exhibits the highest net benefit, $13.81 based on basic information and $13.54 based on comprehensive information. Sensitivity analysis strongly supports the cost-effectiveness of the combined screening approach.
conclusionThis study advocates prostate cancer screening with PSA and DRE, is economically justified for men aged 40-69. The results of the study recommend that policymakers prioritize resource allocation for PCa screening programs based on age and budget constraints. Men's willingness to pay, especially for the 40-49 age group which had the highest net benefit, leverages their financial participation in screening services. Additionally, screening services for other age groups, such as 50-54 or 55-59, can be provided either for free or at a reduced cost.
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.