Abstract

BackgroundThe current recommendation of using transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSB) to diagnose prostate cancer misses clinically significant (CS) cancers. More sensitive biopsies (eg, template prostate mapping biopsy [TPMB]) are too resource intensive for routine use, and there is little evidence on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI). ObjectiveTo identify the most effective and cost-effective way of using these tests to detect CS prostate cancer. Design, setting, and participantsCost-effectiveness modelling of health outcomes and costs of men referred to secondary care with a suspicion of prostate cancer prior to any biopsy in the UK National Health Service using information from the diagnostic Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). InterventionCombinations of MPMRI, TRUSB, and TPMB, using different definitions and diagnostic cut-offs for CS cancer. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisStrategies that detect the most CS cancers given testing costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) given long-term costs. Results and limitationsThe use of MPMRI first and then up to two MRI-targeted TRUSBs detects more CS cancers per pound spent than a strategy using TRUSB first (sensitivity = 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.92–0.98] vs 0.91 [95% CI 0.86–0.94]) and is cost effective (ICER = £7,076 [€8350/QALY gained]). The limitations stem from the evidence base in the accuracy of MRI-targeted biopsy and the long-term outcomes of men with CS prostate cancer. ConclusionsAn MPMRI-first strategy is effective and cost effective for the diagnosis of CS prostate cancer. These findings are sensitive to the test costs, sensitivity of MRI-targeted TRUSB, and long-term outcomes of men with cancer, which warrant more empirical research. This analysis can inform the development of clinical guidelines. Patient summaryWe found that, under certain assumptions, the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging first and then up to two transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy is better than the current clinical standard and is good value for money.

Highlights

  • Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) is increasingly being recommended for the diagnosis of clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer, if the initial biopsy proves negative [1,2]

  • Using template mapping biopsy (TPMB) as the reference standard, it was found that multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) had better sensitivity for CS prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSB) but worse specificity [4]

  • This study aims to identify the combinations of tests— diagnostic strategies—that detect the most CS cancers per pound spent in testing and achieve the maximum health given their cost to the healthcare service

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) is increasingly being recommended for the diagnosis of clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer, if the initial biopsy proves negative [1,2]. Results and limitations: The use of MPMRI first and up to two MRI-targeted TRUSBs detects more CS cancers per pound spent than a strategy using TRUSB first (sensitivity = 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.92–0.98] vs 0.91 [95% CI 0.86–0.94]) and is cost effective (ICER = £7,076 [s8350/QALY gained]). Conclusions: An MPMRI-first strategy is effective and cost effective for the diagnosis of CS prostate cancer These findings are sensitive to the test costs, sensitivity of MRItargeted TRUSB, and long-term outcomes of men with cancer, which warrant more empirical research. This analysis can inform the development of clinical guidelines

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.