Cargando…

Assessment of harms, benefits, and cost‐effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: A micro‐simulation study of 230 scenarios

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer screening incurs a high risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. An organized and age‐targeted screening strategy may reduce the associated harms while retaining or enhancing the benefits. METHODS: Using a micro‐simulation analysis (MISCAN) model, we assessed the harms, b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Getaneh, Abraham M., Heijnsdijk, Eveline A. M., Roobol, Monique J., de Koning, Harry J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7571827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32813910
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3395
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer screening incurs a high risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. An organized and age‐targeted screening strategy may reduce the associated harms while retaining or enhancing the benefits. METHODS: Using a micro‐simulation analysis (MISCAN) model, we assessed the harms, benefits, and cost‐effectiveness of 230 prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies in a Dutch population. Screening strategies were varied by screening start age (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55), stop age (51‐69), and intervals (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and single test). Costs and effects of each screening strategy were compared with a no‐screening scenario. RESULTS: The most optimum strategy would be screening with 3‐year intervals at ages 55–64 resulting in an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €19 733 per QALY. This strategy predicted a 27% prostate cancer mortality reduction and 28 life years gained (LYG) per 1000 men; 36% of screen‐detected men were overdiagnosed. Sensitivity analyses did not substantially alter the optimal screening strategy. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening beyond age 64 is not cost‐effective and associated with a higher risk of overdiagnosis. Similarly, starting screening before age 55 is not a favored strategy based on our cost‐effectiveness analysis.