Advertisement

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Brazil

      Highlights

      • Prostate-specific antigen screening has cost-effectiveness and cost-utility advantages over the nonscreened population from a Brazilian perspective.
      • Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility advantages were noted in a long-term follow-up and hospital perspective.
      • Lower rates of late-stage diagnosis and mortality were registered in the screened population.

      Abstract

      Introduction: Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies among men worldwide. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening shows uncertain benefits and harms from clinical and economic perspectives, resulting in an important impact on healthcare systems. Because of nonstandardized studies and substantial differences among populations, data are still inconclusive.

      Objective

      The objective of this study was to carry out long-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis on the PSA-screened population from the service provider’s perspective in the Brazilian population.

      Methods

      We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using clinical outcomes obtained from 9692 men enrolled in the PSA screening program. Prostate cancer treatments, 5-year follow-up outcomes, and all related costs were examined. Data were compared with a nonscreened prostate cancer population to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). ICER and ICUR were compared with the Brazilian-established willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (WTP = R$ 114 026.55).

      Results

      A total of 251 of 9692 men had a diagnosis of prostate cancer (2.6%), of which 90% had localized disease. Two hundred and five patients were treated as follows: surgery (45.37%); radiation therapy (11.22%); radiation plus androgen deprivation therapy (21.95%); active surveillance (13.17%); exclusive androgen deprivation therapy (7.32%); and watchful waiting (0.98%). Two simulated cohorts were compared based on screening and nonscreening groups. Values obtained were—ICER of R$ 44 491.39 per life saved and ICUR of R$ 10 851.56 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained—below the Brazilian WTP threshold and showed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility advantages.

      Conclusion

      According to the Brazilian WTP, PSA screening is a cost-effective policy from a hospital and long-term perspective and should have more standardized studies developed in different populations and economies.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

      1. Estimativa 2020: Brasil - estimativa dos casos novos. Instituto Nacional De Câncer Ministério Da Saúde.
        • Global cancer observatory (GCO)
        International Agency for Research on Cancer.
        http://gco.iarc.fr
        Date accessed: January 12, 2020
        • Siegel R.
        • Naishadham D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2013.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63: 11-30
        • Center M.M.
        • Jemal A.
        • Lortet-Tieulent J.
        • et al.
        International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 1079-1092
        • Etzioni R.
        • Gulati R.
        • Tsodikov A.
        • et al.
        The prostate cancer conundrum revisited: treatment changes and prostate cancer mortality declines.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 5955-5963
        • Hoffman R.M.
        Clinical practice. Screening for prostate cancer [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2009;360(17):1797].
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 2013-2019
        • Andriole G.L.
        • Crawford E.D.
        • Grubb 3rd, R.L.
        • et al.
        Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1310-1319
        • Ilic D.
        • O’Connor D.
        • Green S.
        • Wilt T.
        Screening for prostate cancer.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 19CD004720
        • Schröder F.H.
        • Hugosson J.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • et al.
        Screening and prostate cancer mortality in a randomized European study.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1320-1328
        • Schröder F.H.
        • Hugosson J.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • et al.
        The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up.
        Lancet. 2014; 384: 2027-2035
        • Hugosson J.
        • Carlsson S.
        • Aus G.
        • et al.
        Mortality results from the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate-cancer screening trial.
        Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 725-732
        • Wilt T.J.
        • Brawer M.K.
        • Jones K.M.
        • et al.
        Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localised prostate cancer [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2012;367(6):582].
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 203-213
        • Wilt T.J.
        • Jones K.M.
        • Barry M.J.
        • et al.
        Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 132-142
        • Hamdy F.C.
        • Donovan J.L.
        • Lane J.A.
        • et al.
        10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1415-1424
        • Donovan J.L.
        • Hamdy F.C.
        • Lane J.A.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1425-1437
        • Sanghera S.
        • Coast J.
        • Martin R.M.
        • Donovan J.L.
        • Mohiuddin S.
        Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models.
        BMC Cancer. 2018; 18: 84
      2. Cancer stats facts: prostate cancer. National Cancer Institute.
        • Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo
        Sobrevida de pacientes com câncer no Estado de São Paulo: seis anos de seguimento pelo registro hospitalar de câncer: cadernos FOSP volume 5.
        https://bit.ly/34OnGh2
        Date accessed: March 18, 2020
        • Hayes J.H.
        • Barry M.J.
        Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test: a review of current evidence.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 1143-1149
        • Martin A.J.
        • Lord S.J.
        • Verry H.E.
        • Stockler M.R.
        • Emery J.D.
        Risk assessment to guide prostate cancer screening decisions: a cost-effectiveness analysis [published correction appears in Med J Aust. 2014;200(4):205].
        Med J Aust. 2013; 198: 546-550
        • Lao C.
        • Brown C.
        • Rouse P.
        • Edlin R.
        • Lawrenson R.
        Economic evaluation of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review.
        Future Oncol. 2015; 11: 467-477
        • Secoli S.R.
        • Nita M.E.
        • Costa A.M.N.
        Análise de custo-utilidade.
        in: Nita M.E. Campino A.C.C. Secoli S.R. Avaliação de tecnologias em saúde. Artmed, São Paulo, Brazil2010: 343-353
        • Bretani A.
        • Nita M.E.
        • Frederico M.H.H.
        • Carrilho F.J.
        Avaliação de tecnologias em saúde e o custo crescente dos medicamentos: análise De Caso da oncologia.
        in: Nita M.E. Campino A.C.C. Secoli S.R. Avaliação de tecnologias em saúde. Artmed, São Paulo, Brazil2010: 450-459
        • Bolla M.
        • de Reijke T.M.
        • Van Tienhoven G.
        • et al.
        Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 2516-2527
        • Kaplan R.S.
        • Steven R.A.
        Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: A Simpler and More Powerful Path to Higher Profits.
        Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA2007
        • CEA registry
        Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center.
        https://bit.ly/2OLBJOX
        Date accessed: November 22, 2019
        • Cooperberg M.R.
        • Ramakrishna N.R.
        • Duff S.B.
        • et al.
        Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.
        BJU Int. 2013; 111: 437-450
      3. Dados do Censo 2010 publicados no Diário Oficial da União do dia 04/11/2010. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Disponível em.
        https://bit.ly/2Li9KnM
        Date accessed: September 9, 2019
        • Federal R.
        Taxas de câmbio, incluindo valor do dólar. Para Fins Fiscais. Brasil, Ministério da Economia.
        • Secretaria de política econômica
        Índice Geral de Preços ao Mercado-IGPM. Brasil, Ministério da Fazenda. Disponível em.
        http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/
        Date accessed: November 22, 2019
        • Amin M.B.
        • Edge S.
        • Greene F.
        • et al.
        AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.
        8th ed. Springer, New York, NY2017
        • Dindo D.
        • Demartines N.
        • Clavien P.A.
        Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
        Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213
        • Moreira L.F.
        • Pessôa M.C.
        • Mattana D.S.
        • et al.
        Cultural adaptation and the Clavien-Dindo surgical complications classification translated to Brazilian Portuguese.
        Rev Col Bras Cir. 2016; 43: 141-148
        • Cooperative Group common toxicity criteria. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
        https://www.rtog.org/
        Date accessed: November 22, 2018
        • Klotz L.
        Active surveillance: patient selection.
        Curr Opin Urol. 2013; 23: 239-244
        • American College of Radiology
        Prostate Imaging: Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) version 2; 2015.
        https://bit.ly/2Rbj6pf
        Date accessed: November 22, 2018
        • Grubb 3rd, R.L.
        • Pinsky P.F.
        • Greenlee R.T.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial: update on findings from the initial four rounds of screening in a randomized trial.
        BJU Int. 2008; 102: 1524-1530
        • Faria E.F.
        • Carvalhal G.F.
        • Vieira R.A.
        • Silva T.B.
        • Mauad E.C.
        • Carvalho A.L.
        Program for prostate cancer screening using a mobile unit: results from Brazil.
        Urology. 2010; 76: 1052-1057
        • Carneseca E.C.
        • Mauad E.C.
        • de Araujo M.A.
        • Dalbó R.M.
        • Longatto Filho A.
        • Vazquez Vde L.
        The Hospital de Cancer de Barretos registry: an analysis of cancer survival at a single institution in Brazil over a 10-year period.
        BMC Res Notes. 2013; 6: 141
        • Cooperberg M.R.
        • Cowan J.
        • Broering J.M.
        • Carroll P.R.
        High-risk prostate cancer in the United States, 1990-2007.
        World J Urol. 2008; 26: 211-218
        • Garg V.
        • Gu N.Y.
        • Borrego M.E.
        • Raisch D.W.
        A literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of prostate-specific antigen test in prostate cancer screening.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013; 13: 327-342
        • Shteynshlyuger A.
        • Andriole G.L.
        Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 828-832
        • Heijnsdijk E.A.
        • de Carvalho T.M.
        • Auvinen A.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 107: 366
        • Roth J.A.
        • Gulati R.
        • Gore J.L.
        • Cooperberg M.R.
        • Etzioni R.
        Economic analysis of prostate-specific antigen screening and selective treatment strategies.
        JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2: 890-898
        • de Carvalho T.M.
        • Heijnsdijk E.A.M.
        • de Koning H.J.
        Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer screening between the ages of 55 and 69 years followed by active surveillance.
        Cancer. 2018; 124: 507-513
        • Perlis N.
        • Klotz L.
        Contemporary active surveillance: candidate selection, follow-up tools, and expected outcomes.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2017; 44: 565-574
        • Koerber F.
        • Waidelich R.
        • Stollenwerk B.
        • Rogowski W.
        The cost-utility of open prostatectomy compared with active surveillance in early localized prostate cancer.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 163
        • Pozo C.
        • Hernández V.
        • Capitán C.
        • et al.
        A comprehensive analysis of cost of an active surveillance cohort compared to radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for prostate cancer.
        World J Urol. 2019; 37: 1297-1303
        • Laviana A.A.
        • Ilg A.M.
        • Veruttipong D.
        • et al.
        Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to understand the short- and long-term costs of treating localised, low-risk prostate cancer.
        Cancer. 2016; 122: 447-455
        • Vargas H.A.
        • Akin O.
        • Afaq A.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 1732-1738
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • El-Shater Bosaily A.
        • Brown L.C.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Alberts A.R.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • Drost F.H.
        • et al.
        Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2017; 120: 511-519
        • Schoots I.G.
        • Petrides N.
        • Giganti F.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 627-636
        • NICE. National collaborating Centre for Cancer
        Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Clinical guideline.
        https://www.nice.org.uk/search?q=Prostate+cancer
        Date accessed: November 22, 2019
        • Macleod L.C.
        • Yabes J.G.
        • Fam M.M.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is associated with increased medicare spending in prostate cancer active surveillance.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2020; 6: 242-248
        • Fam M.M.
        • Yabes J.G.
        • Macleod L.C.
        • et al.
        Increasing utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance.
        Urology. 2019; 130: 99-105
        • Thurtle D.
        • Barrett T.
        • Thankappan-Nair V.
        • et al.
        Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2018; 122: 59-65
        • Mamawala M.K.
        • Meyer A.R.
        • Landis P.K.
        • et al.
        Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance.
        BJU Int. 2020; 125: 861-866
        • Glass A.S.
        • Dall’Era M.A.
        Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance.
        BJU Int. 2019; 124: 730-737
        • Hsiang W.
        • Ghabili K.
        • Syed J.S.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent biopsy in men with low-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7: 47-54
        • Gallagher K.M.
        • Christopher E.
        • Cameron A.J.
        • et al.
        Four-year outcomes from a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based active surveillance program: PSA dynamics and serial MRI scans allow omission of protocol biopsies.
        BJU Int. 2019; 123: 429-438
      4. São Paulo. Secretaria do estado de São Paulo. Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo (FOSP). Registro Hospitalar de Câncer. http://www.fosp.saude.sp.gov.br/publicacoes/downloadarquivos. Accessed April 15, 2020.

        • Observatório 2020
        Associação Nacional de Hospitais Privados.