Benefit, Harm, and Cost-effectiveness Associated With Magnetic Resonance Imaging Before Biopsy in Age-based and Risk-stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer.
Aged
Beneficence
Biopsy
/ economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Early Detection of Cancer
/ economics
England
Health Care Costs
Humans
Life Tables
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ economics
Male
Mass Screening
/ economics
Medical Overuse
Middle Aged
Probability
Prospective Studies
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Uncertainty
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2021
01 03 2021
Historique:
entrez:
11
3
2021
pubmed:
12
3
2021
medline:
29
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
If magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) mitigates overdiagnosis of prostate cancer while improving the detection of clinically significant cases, including MRI in a screening program for prostate cancer could be considered. To evaluate the benefit-harm profiles and cost-effectiveness associated with MRI before biopsy compared with biopsy-first screening for prostate cancer using age-based and risk-stratified screening strategies. This decision analytical model used a life-table approach and was conducted between December 2019 and July 2020. A hypothetical cohort of 4.48 million men in England aged 55 to 69 years were analyzed and followed-up to 90 years of age. No screening, age-based screening, and risk-stratified screening in the hypothetical cohort. Age-based screening consisted of screening every 4 years with prostate-specific antigen between the ages of 55 and 69 years. Risk-stratified screening used age and polygenic risk profiles. The benefit-harm profile (deaths from prostate cancer, quality-adjusted life-years, overdiagnosis, and biopsies) and cost-effectiveness (net monetary benefit, from a health care system perspective) were analyzed. Both age-based and risk-stratified screening were evaluated using a biopsy-first and an MRI-first diagnostic pathway. Results were derived from probabilistic analyses and were discounted at 3.5% per annum. The hypothetical cohort included 4.48 million men in England, ranging in age from 55 to 69 years (median, 62 years). Compared with biopsy-first age-based screening, MRI-first age-based screening was associated with 0.9% (1368; 95% uncertainty interval [UI], 1370-1409) fewer deaths from prostate cancer, 14.9% (12 370; 95% UI, 11 100-13 670) fewer overdiagnoses, and 33.8% (650 500; 95% UI, 463 200-907 000) fewer biopsies. At 10-year absolute risk thresholds of 2% and 10%, MRI-first risk-stratified screening was associated with between 10.4% (7335; 95% UI, 6630-8098) and 72.6% (51 250; 95% UI, 46 070-56 890) fewer overdiagnosed cancers, respectively, and between 21.7% fewer MRIs (412 100; 95% UI, 411 400-412 900) and 53.5% fewer biopsies (1 016 000; 95% UI, 1 010 000-1 022 000), respectively, compared with MRI-first age-based screening. The most cost-effective strategies at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20 000 (US $26 000) and £30 000 (US $39 000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained were MRI-first risk-stratified screening at 10-year absolute risk thresholds of 8.5% and 7.5%, respectively. In this decision analytical model of a hypothetical cohort, an MRI-first diagnostic pathway was associated with an improvement in the benefit-harm profile and cost-effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer compared with biopsy-first screening. These improvements were greater when using risk-stratified screening based on age and polygenic risk profile and may warrant prospective evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33704474
pii: 2777401
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37657
pmc: PMC7953309
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2037657Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
BMJ. 2018 Jan 10;360:j5757
pubmed: 29321194
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 5;9(1):4616
pubmed: 30397198
N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 16;367(7):595-605
pubmed: 22894572
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424
pubmed: 27626136
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2019 Jul;76(1):43-51
pubmed: 30824296
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):539-45
pubmed: 21669378
Lancet. 2014 Dec 6;384(9959):2027-35
pubmed: 25108889
Genet Med. 2015 Oct;17(10):789-95
pubmed: 25569441
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1504-1510
pubmed: 29978189
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 25;4:CD012663
pubmed: 31022301
BMJ. 2018 Sep 5;362:k3519
pubmed: 30185521
Br J Cancer. 2009 Apr 7;100(7):1198-204
pubmed: 19293796
PLoS Med. 2019 Dec 20;16(12):e1002998
pubmed: 31860675
JAMA. 2018 May 8;319(18):1901-1913
pubmed: 29801017
Palliat Med. 2015 Dec;29(10):899-907
pubmed: 26199134
Eur Urol. 2018 Jan;73(1):23-30
pubmed: 28935163
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Jul;29(7):1381-1388
pubmed: 32385116
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e198427
pubmed: 31390032