scholarly journals Risk assessment to guide prostate cancer screening decisions: a cost‐effectiveness analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 200 (4) ◽  
pp. 205-205
Author(s):  
Andrew J Martin ◽  
Sarah J Lord ◽  
Hannah E Verry ◽  
Martin R Stockler ◽  
Jon D Emery
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

scholarly journals Risk assessment to guide prostate cancer screening decisions: a cost‐effectiveness analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 198 (10) ◽  
pp. 546-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J Martin ◽  
Sarah J Lord ◽  
Hannah E Verry ◽  
Martin R Stockler ◽  
Jon D Emery
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

scholarly journals Interpreting cost-effectiveness ratios in a cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-tailored prostate screening: A critique of Callender et al.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
James F. O'Mahony
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Callender et al. recently published a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-tailored approach to prostate cancer screening. It considers the costs and effects of prostate cancer screening offered to all men aged 55-69 without any risk selection and, alternatively, over a range of risk-tailored strategies in which screen eligibility is determined by a varying threshold of disease risk. The analysis finds that the strategy of screening men once they reach a 10-year absolute risk of disease of 5% or more is cost-effective in a UK context. I believe there are several problems with the study, mostly stemming from an incorrect interpretation of the cost-effectiveness estimates. I show that one reinterpretation of their results indicates that screening is much less cost-effective than the original analysis suggests, indicating that screening should be restricted to a much smaller group of higher risk men. More broadly, I explain the challenges of attempting to meaningfully reinterpret the originally published results due to the simulation of non-mutually exclusive intervention strategies. Finally, I consider the relevance of considering sufficient alternative screening intensities. This critique highlights the need for appropriate interpretation of cost-effectiveness results for policymakers, especially as risk stratification within screening becomes increasingly feasible.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Brazil

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 89-97
Author(s):  
Renato Almeida Rosa de Oliveira ◽  
Thiago Camelo Mourão ◽  
Thiago Borges Marques Santana ◽  
Ricardo de Lima Favaretto ◽  
Stenio de Cassio Zequi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

scholarly journals Interpreting cost-effectiveness ratios in a cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-tailored prostate screening: A critique of Callender et al.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
James F. O'Mahony
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Callender et al. recently published a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-tailored approach to prostate cancer screening. It considers the costs and effects of prostate cancer screening offered to all men aged 55-69 without any risk selection and, alternatively, over a range of risk-tailored strategies in which screen eligibility is determined by a varying threshold of disease risk. The analysis finds that the strategy of screening men once they reach a 10-year absolute risk of disease of 5% or more is cost-effective in a UK context. I believe there are several problems with the study, mostly stemming from an incorrect interpretation of the cost-effectiveness estimates. I show that one reinterpretation of their results indicates that screening is much less cost-effective than the original analysis suggests, indicating that screening should be restricted to a much smaller group of higher risk men. More broadly, I explain the challenges of attempting to meaningfully reinterpret the originally published results due to the simulation of non-mutually exclusive intervention strategies. Finally, I consider the relevance of considering sufficient alternative screening intensities. This critique highlights the need for appropriate interpretation of cost-effectiveness results for policymakers, especially as risk stratification within screening becomes increasingly feasible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document