Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40665795›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025

Cost effectiveness analysis of prostate cancer screening strategies in Germany: A microsimulation study.

Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi, Shuang Hao, Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte, Shah Alam Khan, Nikolaus Becker, Agne Krilaviciute, Petra Seibold, Roman Gulati, Peter Albers, Michael Schlander and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

11 authors.

Muchandifunga Trust MuchadeyiDivision of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8918-8673
Shuang HaoDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2303-4532
Karla Hernandez-VillafuerteDivision of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6685-1903
Shah Alam KhanDivision of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5121-8630
Nikolaus BeckerDivision of Personalized Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3230-4223
Agne KrilaviciuteDivision of Personalized Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8192-9759
Petra SeiboldDivision of Personalized Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Roman GulatiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7592-6567
Peter AlbersDivision of Personalized Early Detection of Prostate Cancer, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7360-6335
Michael SchlanderDivision of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3489-5856
Mark ClementsDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4518-5670

Funding

Statistical modeling to support population and translational cancer researchR50CA221836 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Roman Gulati · 2017 to 2026
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R50 CA221836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant public health challenge in Germany, with increasing incidence and economic impact. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of 10 screening strategies: prostate-specific antigen-based risk-adaptive screening (PSA-RAS), with or without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in men starting at age 45 or 50 and stopping at 60 or 70, digital rectal examination (DRE) for ages 45-75 years, and no screening. Using a well calibrated microsimulation model (Swedish Prostata) from a statutory health insurance perspective, lifetime outcomes were evaluated, including cancer incidence, mortality, overdiagnosis, biopsies, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) discounted annually at 3%. Cost and utility inputs were derived from the German diagnostic-related group schedule, fee-for-service catalogues, literature, and expert opinion. DRE-only was the least cost-effective, yielding high biopsy and overdiagnosis rates with minimal QALY gains. PSA-RAS reduced overdiagnosis and biopsy rates, with PSA-RAS (50-60 years) without MRI emerging as the most cost-efficient strategy, saving approximately €1.2 million per 100,000 men compared with no screening. Extending the PSA-RAS to 70 years improved its effectiveness in terms of QALYs. PSA-RAS (50-70) with MRI could become cost-effective at an increasing willingness to pay threshold or decreasing MRI cost. This study suggests the potential of PSA-RAS to improve PCa screening in Germany. Incorporating MRI, reducing MRI cost within the screening setting, and extending screening to 70 to align with EU recommendations could improve the cost-effectiveness of PSA-RAS with MRI. Future research should explore the integration of MRI with ancillary tests, such as 4K-score or risk calculators, to reduce MRI use and associated costs.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyCost-Effectiveness AnalysisDigital Rectal ExaminationGermanyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedOverdiagnosisProstate-Specific AntigenQuality-Adjusted Life YearsProstate-Specific Antigencost‐effectiveness analysismagnetic resonance imagingorganised screeningprostate cancerprostate‐specific antigenQALYs

Identifiers

PMID40665795
PMCPMC12375846

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.