IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002998.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: A benefit–harm and cost-effectiveness modelling study

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Callender
  • Mark Emberton
  • Steve Morris
  • Ros Eeles
  • Zsofia Kote-Jarai
  • Paul D P Pharoah
  • Nora Pashayan

Abstract

Background: The United States Preventive Services Task Force supports individualised decision-making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening in men aged 55–69. Knowing how the potential benefits and harms of screening vary by an individual’s risk of developing prostate cancer could inform decision-making about screening at both an individual and population level. This modelling study examined the benefit–harm tradeoffs and the cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening programme compared to age-based and no screening. Methods and findings: A life-table model, projecting age-specific prostate cancer incidence and mortality, was developed of a hypothetical cohort of 4.48 million men in England aged 55 to 69 years with follow-up to age 90. Risk thresholds were based on age and polygenic profile. We compared no screening, age-based screening (quadrennial PSA testing from 55 to 69), and risk-tailored screening (men aged 55 to 69 years with a 10-year absolute risk greater than a threshold receive quadrennial PSA testing from the age they reach the risk threshold). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective, including direct costs borne by the health system for risk assessment, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We used probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for parameter uncertainty and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5% per year. Our analysis should be considered cautiously in light of limitations related to our model’s cohort-based structure and the uncertainty of input parameters in mathematical models. Compared to no screening over 35 years follow-up, age-based screening prevented the most deaths from prostate cancer (39,272, 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 16,792–59,685) at the expense of 94,831 (95% UI: 84,827–105,630) overdiagnosed cancers. Age-based screening was the least cost-effective strategy studied. The greatest number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was generated by risk-based screening at a 10-year absolute risk threshold of 4%. At this threshold, risk-based screening led to one-third fewer overdiagnosed cancers (64,384, 95% UI: 57,382–72,050) but averted 6.3% fewer (9,695, 95% UI: 2,853–15,851) deaths from prostate cancer by comparison with age-based screening. Relative to no screening, risk-based screening at a 4% 10-year absolute risk threshold was cost-effective in 48.4% and 57.4% of the simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of GBP£20,000 (US$26,000) and £30,000 ($39,386) per QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of risk-tailored screening improved as the threshold rose. Conclusions: Based on the results of this modelling study, offering screening to men at higher risk could potentially reduce overdiagnosis and improve the benefit–harm tradeoff and the cost-effectiveness of a prostate cancer screening program. The optimal threshold will depend on societal judgements of the appropriate balance of benefits–harms and cost-effectiveness. Tom Callender and co-authors use a modelling approach to determine the benefit–harm tradeoff and cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening programme compared to age-based and no screening.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Callender & Mark Emberton & Steve Morris & Ros Eeles & Zsofia Kote-Jarai & Paul D P Pharoah & Nora Pashayan, 2019. "Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: A benefit–harm and cost-effectiveness modelling study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002998
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002998
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002998&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002998?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002998. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.