ArticleCancers2026
Cost Analysis of PSMA-PET in the PROSPET-BX Trial.
Article in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is PSMA PET/CT the answer to MRI-occult prostate cancer? Yes, but with strings attached.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe PROSPET-BX trial compared [
methodsWe analyzed the data from patients enrolled in the trial who met the inclusion criteria. For the cost analysis, we identified six competing triage strategies, each defined as a binary decision rule for referral to prostate biopsy: (1) biopsy-all; (2) elevated PSA-density (PSAD; biopsy if PSAD > 0.15 ng/mL/cc; (3) mpMRI positive (PIRADS 3-5); (4) PSMA-PET positive (PRIMARY 3-5); (5) mpMRI or PSMA-PET positive; (6) PSAD and mpMRI. For each strategy, we yielded sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for csPCa. Direct hospital costs were modeled from a provider perspective, incorporating testing and procedural costs. Unit costs (in EUR) were sourced from our institutional accounting records. Pairwise cost-effectiveness comparisons were performed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB).
resultsAmong the six triage strategies evaluated, the "biopsy-all" approach achieved perfect sensitivity, whereas the PSAD + mpMRI pathway was the most parsimonious strategy but missed 14 csPCa cases (53.8%). The combined "mpMRI or PSMA-PET" strategy maximized detection (22 cPCa, missing only 4) at an intermediate cost (EUR 81.991 total; EUR 3.727 per csPCa). The pairwise comparison of each strategy with mpMRI alone showed for the mpMRI or PSMA-PET pathway a low ICER (~EUR 2.900/extra csPCa), with consistently positive and increasing INB across higher WTP (willingness-to-pay). Therefore, this combination provided the most favorable cost-effectiveness profile, balancing detection, efficiency, and cost.
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first cost analysis study to compare different strategies incorporating PSMA-PET in the re-biopsy setting, demonstrating that the combined "mpMRI or PSMA-PET" pathway is the most cost-effective diagnostic pathway for csPCa detection.
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.