Search

Abstract Prostate cancer (PC) staging with conventional imaging often includes multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) of the prostate, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and whole-body bone scintigraphy. The recent development of highly sensitive and specific prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) has suggested that prior imaging techniques may be insufficiently sensitive or specific, particularly when evaluating small pathologic lesions. As PSMA PET/CT is considered to be superior for multiple clinical indications, it is being deployed as the new multidisciplinary standard-of-care. Given this, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of [18F]DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT imaging in the evaluation of PC relative to conventional imaging and anti-3-[18F]FACBC (18F-Fluciclovine) PET/CT. We also conducted a single institution review of PSMA PET/CT scans performed primarily for research indications from January 2018 to October 2021. Our snapshot of this period of time in our catchment demonstrated that PSMA PET/CT imaging was disproportionately accessed by men of European ancestry (EA) and those residing in zip codes associated with a higher median household income. The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT should be considered as an alternative to anti-3-[18F]FACBC PET/CT and standard of care imaging for prostate cancer staging. [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT is a new imaging modality to evaluate PC patients with higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting disease than other prostate specific imaging studies. Despite this, access may be inequitable. This discrepancy will need to be addressed proactively as the distribution network of the radiotracer includes both academic and non-academic sites nationwide.

We estimated U.S. biomedical research funding across therapeutic areas, determined the association with disease burden, and evaluated new drug approvals that resulted from this investment.We calculated funding from 1995 to 2005 and totaled Food and Drug Administration approvals in eight therapeutic areas (cardiovascular, endocrine, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, HIV/AIDS, infectious disease excluding HIV, oncology, and respiratory) primarily using public data. We then calculated correlations between funding, published estimates of disease burden, and drug approvals. Financial support for biomedical research from 1995 to 2005 increased across all therapeutic areas between 43% and 369%. Industry was the principal funder of all areas except HIV/AIDS, infectious disease, and oncology, which were chiefly sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Total (rho = 0.70; P = .03) and industry funding (rho = 0.69; P = .04) were correlated with projected disease burden in high income countries while NIH support (rho = 0.80; P = .01) was correlated with projected disease burden globally. From 1995 to 2005 the number of new approvals was flat or declined across therapeutic areas, and over an 8-year lag period, neither total nor industry funding was correlated with future approvals.Across therapeutic areas, biomedical research funding increased substantially, appears aligned with disease burden in high income countries, but is not linked to new drug approvals. The translational gap between funding and new therapies is affecting all of medicine, and remedies must include changes beyond additional financial investment.