Biparametric MRI as initial screening method less cost-effective for prostate cancers compared to screening with PSA: Study

Written By :  Jacinthlyn Sylvia
Medically Reviewed By :  Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2024-06-17 15:00 GMT   |   Update On 2024-06-17 15:01 GMT
Advertisement

A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that a cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that using biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the initial screening method for prostate cancer is less cost-efficient when compared to starting with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing followed by multiparametric MRI as a second step.

The research team developed a microsimulation model to assess the effectiveness and costs of using first-line biparametric MRI versus first-line PSA with subsequent multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer screening. The model simulated biennial screening up to age 69 after comparing initial PSA testing (positive threshold of 4 mg/L) with or without second-line multiparametric MRI against first-line biparametric MRI (positive threshold PI-RADS score of 3 to 5 or 4 to 5), followed by biopsy guided by MRI or MRI plus transrectal ultrasonography.

Advertisement

The key findings of this study indicated that first-line MRI-based screening significantly increased the rates of false-positive tests, prostate biopsies, and over diagnosis without correspondingly reducing prostate cancer mortality. For every 1,000 men screened, first-line biparametric MRI prevented 2 to 3 prostate cancer deaths and added 10 to 30 life-years (equivalent to 4 to 11 days per person). However, it also resulted in 1,506 additional biopsies and 38 to 124 more over diagnoses, depending on the biopsy imaging scheme. The study found that, at conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds, first-line PSA testing followed by multiparametric MRI and either biopsy method yielded the highest net monetary benefits.

The study also observed that even if first-line biparametric MRI screening were free, first-line PSA testing with subsequent multiparametric MRI, followed by MRI-guided prostate biopsy with or without transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy, still proved to be more cost-effective and resulted in better quality of life. An accompanying editorial emphasized the importance of high-quality cost-effectiveness analyses in understanding the impact of changes in clinical practice on the overall healthcare system.

The decision analysis indicated that the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening are influenced by false-positive results and over diagnoses, making first-line PSA testing followed by multiparametric MRI more favorable than first-line biparametric MRI. Overall, this detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of a biparametric MRI-first approach for prostate cancer screening underlines the necessity for a deeper understanding of the true comparative diagnostic accuracy of biparametric MRI versus PSA testing followed by standard template biopsy. It also emphasized the importance of assessing the financial burden of contemporary prostate cancer screening practices and determining the best candidates for prostate biopsy by integrating biomarkers, imaging and patient risk factors.

Source:

Gulati, R., Jiao, B., Al-Faouri, R., Sharma, V., Kaul, S., Fleishman, A., Wymer, K., Boorjian, S. A., Olumi, A. F., Etzioni, R., & Gershman, B. (2024). Lifetime Health and Economic Outcomes of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as First-Line Screening for Prostate Cancer. In Annals of Internal Medicine. American College of Physicians. https://doi.org/10.7326/m23-1504

Tags:    
Article Source : Annals of Internal Medicine

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News