Search

Background and objective: Building on previous research demonstrating better prostate cancer (PC) diagnostics via a biomarker-enhanced approach, this study focuses on cost analysis of PC care using the Stockholm3 test. We assessed the economic impact in European health care systems using real-world evidence for diagnostic outcomes and relevant costs. Methods: We evaluated two PC diagnostic strategies: (1) the conventional prostate-specific antigen (PSA) strategy with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and (2) PSA testing with a reflex to biomarkers at PSA ≥1.5 ng/ml in guiding decisions to perform MRI. Data from the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register and Capio St. Göran Hospital provided real-world evidence, supplemented by health economic modeling. A comprehensive cost analysis was conducted using a Markov model for treatment pathways for four PC disease states and overall spending, for which costs from various European health care systems were used. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed across different cost and diagnostic scenarios. Key finding and limitations: The average cost for the four disease states was €2 182 for benign disease, €10 023 for low-grade disease, €13 073 for intermediate- to high-grade localized or locally advance disease, and €271 210 for metastatic disease. The overall spending was €358 239 (7.7%) lower per 1000 men tested in the biomarker-enhanced strategy in comparison to the PSA strategy. The primary cost saving was attributed to lower treatment expenses for metastatic disease. Sensitivity analysis affirmed the robustness of the findings across various diagnostic and treatment scenarios. Conclusions and clinical implications: Biomarker-enhanced diagnostic strategies may reduce health care costs for PC management and are likely to improve quality-adjusted life years in a scenario in which metastatic disease is reduced. Patient summary: We explored different ways to detect prostate cancer more cost-effectively. We found that using a specific blood test, called Stockholm3, after a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test to decide if an MRI scan (magnetic resonance imaging) is necessary could save money, mainly by identifying localized cancer earlier and reducing the need for expensive treatments for advanced cancer.

Context: Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients’ values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development. Objective: To perform a systematic review of patients’ values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Evidence acquisition: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients’ preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420. Evidence synthesis: A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low certainty). Patients continue to value oncological benefits in making decisions on treatments under qualitative assessment. Conclusions: There is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks. Patient summary: We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients’ preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.