Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stockholm 3 Testing Compared to PSA as the Primary Blood Test in the Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathway:A Decision Tree Approach

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of using Stockholm 3 (STHLM3) testing compared to the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer. METHODS: We created a decision tree model for PSA (current standard) and STHLM3 (new alternative). Cost effectiveness was evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of male individuals aged 50–69 years. The study applied a Danish hospital perspective with a time frame restricted to the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway, beginning with the initial PSA/STHLM3 test, and ending with biopsy and histopathological diagnosis. Estimated values from the decision-analytical model were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the base-case analysis. RESULTS: The model-based analysis revealed that STHLM3 testing was more effective than the PSA, but also more costly, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €511.7 (95% credible interval, 359.9–674.3) for each additional correctly classified individual. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, variations in the cost of STHLM3 had the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, all iterations were positioned in the north-east quadrant of the incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplot. At a willingness to pay of €700 for an additional correctly classified individual, STHLM3 had a 100% probability of being cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the PSA test as the initial testing modality in the prostate cancer diagnostic workup, STHLM3 testing showed improved incremental effectiveness, however, at additional costs. The results were sensitive to the cost of the STHLM3 test; therefore, a lower cost of the STHLM3 test would improve its cost effectiveness compared with PSA tests. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-022-00741-0

The effect of assessing genetic risk of prostate cancer on the use of PSA tests in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background Assessing genetic lifetime risk for prostate cancer has been proposed as a means of risk stratification to identify those for whom prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is likely to be most valuable. This project aimed to test the effect of introducing a genetic test for lifetime risk of prostate cancer in general practice on future PSA testing. Methods and findings We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with randomization at the level of general practices (73 in each of two arms) in the Central Region (Region Midtjylland) of Denmark. In intervention practices, men were offered a genetic test (based on genotyping of 33 risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms) in addition to the standard PSA test that informed them about lifetime genetic risk of prostate cancer and distinguished between “normal” and “high” risk. The primary outcome was the proportion of men having a repeated PSA test within 2 years. A multilevel logistic regression model was used to test the association. After applying the exclusion criteria, 3,558 men were recruited in intervention practices, with 1,235 (34.7%) receiving the genetic test, and 4,242 men were recruited in control practices. Men with high genetic risk had a higher propensity for repeated PSA testing within 2 years than men with normal genetic risk (odds ratio [OR] = 8.94, p < 0.01). The study was conducted in routine practice and had some selection bias, which is evidenced by the relatively large proportion of younger and higher income participants taking the genetic test. Conclusions Providing general practitioners (GPs) with access to a genetic test to assess lifetime risk of prostate cancer did not reduce the overall number of future PSA tests. However, among men who had a genetic test, knowledge of genetic risk significantly influenced future PSA testing