Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38789306›Full record

SynthesisEuropean urology2024

Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe.

Pieter Vynckier, Lieven Annemans, Sarah Raes, Cheïma Amrouch, Peter Lindgren, Ondřej Májek, Katharina Beyer, Renée C A Leenen, Lionne D F Venderbos, Frederique Denijs and 13 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. GMP-compliant automated synthesis and quality control of [EJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

23 authors.

Pieter VynckierDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: pieter.vynckier@ugent.be.
Lieven AnnemansDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Sarah RaesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Cheïma AmrouchDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Peter LindgrenSwedish Institute for Health Economics, Lund, Sweden.
Ondřej MájekNational Screening Centre, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czechia; Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.
Katharina BeyerDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Renée C A LeenenDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lionne D F VenderbosDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederique DenijsDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Meike J van HartenCancer Center, Department of Urology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jozien HellemanDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Renata ChloupkováNational Screening Centre, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czechia; Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.
Erik BriersEuropa Uomo, Antwerp, Belgium.
Vera VasilyevaEuropean Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Juan Gomez RivasDepartment of Urology, Clínico San Carlos University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Partha BasuInternational Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Arunah ChandranInternational Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Sarah CollenEuropean Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Hein Van PoppelEuropean Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Members of the PRAISE-U Consortium

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveIn Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes.

methodsA peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from €5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to €372 948/QALY, with a median of €56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerProstatic NeoplasmsAgedCost-Effectiveness AnalysisEuropeHealth Care CostsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenQuality-Adjusted Life YearsProstate-Specific AntigenCost effectivenessProstate cancerPRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European UnionScreening

Identifiers

PMID38789306
PMCPMC11579306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.