Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS)

Eur Urol. 2018 Jan;73(1):23-30. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018. Epub 2017 Sep 19.

Abstract

Background: The 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).

Objective: To identify the most effective and cost-effective way of using these tests to detect CS prostate cancer.

Design, setting, and participants: Cost-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).

Intervention: Combinations of MPMRI, TRUSB, and TPMB, using different definitions and diagnostic cut-offs for CS cancer.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Strategies 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 limitations: The 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.

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 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 summary: We 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.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analysis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Model-based analysis; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Decision Support Techniques
  • Decision Trees
  • Health Care Costs*
  • Humans
  • Image-Guided Biopsy / economics*
  • Image-Guided Biopsy / methods
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / economics*
  • Male
  • Models, Economic
  • Neoplasm Grading
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Prostatic Neoplasms / diagnostic imaging*
  • Prostatic Neoplasms / economics*
  • Prostatic Neoplasms / pathology
  • Prostatic Neoplasms / therapy
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • State Medicine / economics
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Ultrasonography / economics*
  • United Kingdom