THE BENEFIT AND COST OF PROSTATE-CANCER EARLY DETECTION

被引:75
作者
LITTRUP, PJ
GOODMAN, AC
METTLIN, CJ
机构
[1] Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
[2] Department iof Economics, Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan
[3] Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York
[4] Prostate Research, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor
关键词
D O I
10.3322/canjclin.43.3.134
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Cost-effectiveness calculations of prostate cancer early detection have not been possible due to the lack of any data demonstrating reduction in mortality from any test or procedure. Prior analyses focused only on cost assessments without consideration of any possible benefits. We used current data from three consecutive years of the American Cancer Society-National Prostate Cancer Detection Project to assess different economic perspectives of test performance, marginal costs, and benefit-cost analysis. The marginal cost, or cost per cancer, of digital rectal examination (DRE) markedly increased by the third year relative to several proposed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) scenarios. Sensitivity analysis for average cost showed that at 4 ng/ml, pricing PSA below $30 would be the most potent factor in potentially lowering costs. Analysis of receiver operator characteristic curves suggested that optimal performance for PSA may be at 3 ng/ml when combined with DRE or between 2 to 3 ng/ml when used alone. Benefit-cost calculations demonstrated that DRE when performed by highly skilled examiners had the lowest cost. However, DRE became one of the most costly detection scenarios when a minor decrease in performance was assumed. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the three most determinant parameters of net benefit, in decreasing order, are: specificity, benefits from earlier therapy, and prevalence. If a slightly more specific PSA assay is developed, the higher prevalence of clinically detectable prostate cancer could also make screening less costly than breast cancer screening. Under the assumptions of these analyses, the combination of PSA and DRE appears to represent an ethical and economical detection choice for individual patients in consultation with their physicians. Additional research is needed to quantify the significance of differences between different screening strategies.
引用
收藏
页码:134 / 149
页数:16
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Boring CC, Squires TS, Tong T, Cancer statistics, 1993, CA Cancer J Clin, 43, pp. 7-26, (1993)
  • [2] Natarajan N, Murphy GP, Mettlin CJ, Prostate cancer in blacks: An update from the American College of Surgeons patterns of care studies, Journal of Surgical Oncology, 40, pp. 232-236, (1989)
  • [3] Mettlin C, Jones GW, Murphy GP, Trends in prostate care in the United States, 1974–1990: Observations from the patient care evaluation studies of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, CA Cancer J Clin, 43, pp. 83-91, (1993)
  • [4] Schmidt JD, Mettlin CJ, Natarajan N, Et al., Trends in patterns of care for prostatic cancer, 1974–1983: Results of surveys by the American College of Surgeons, J Urol, 136, pp. 416-421, (1986)
  • [5] Murphy GP, Natarajan N, Pontes JE, Et al., The national survey of prostate cancer in the United States by the American College of Surgeons, J Urol, 127, pp. 928-934, (1982)
  • [6] Gerber GS, Thompson IM, Thisted R, Chodak GW, Disease‐specific survival following routine prostate cancer screening by digital rectal examination, JAMA, 269, pp. 61-64, (1993)
  • [7] Optenberg SA, Thompson IM, Economics of screening for carcinoma of the prostate, Urol Clin North Am, 17, pp. 719-737, (1990)
  • [8] Mettlin C, Lee F, Drago J, Et al., The American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project: Findings on the detection of early prostate cancer in 2425 men, Cancer, 67, pp. 2949-2958, (1991)
  • [9] Torp-Pedersen ST, Littrup PJ, Lee F, Mettlin C, Early prostate cancer: Diagnostic costs of screening transrectal US and digital rectal examination, Radiology, 169, pp. 351-354, (1988)
  • [10] Chodak GW, Schoenberg HW, Early detection of prostate cancer by routine screening, JAMA, 252, pp. 3261-3264, (1984)