Prognostic Testing for Prostate Cancer—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing a Prostatype P-Score Biomarker Approach to Standard Clinical Practice

Background The Prostatype score (P-score) is a prognostic biomarker that integrates a three-gene (IGFBP3, F3, and VGLL3) signature derived from prostate biopsy samples, with key clinical parameters, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason grade, and tumor stage at diagnosis. The test has demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for prostate cancer outcomes compared with traditional risk categorization systems such as D’Amico. Notably, it reclassifies a higher proportion of patients into the low-risk category, making them eligible for active surveillance. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the P-score in comparison with D’Amico and the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) risk categorization systems. Methods A two-step decision analytic model was developed. The model consisted of a decision tree-informed Markov structure estimating the lifetime outcomes of 60-year-old men with diagnosed prostate cancer. Prostate cancer was classified as low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk using either the P-score or D’Amico. Initial therapy was based on observed treatment patterns from the Swedish NPCR. Costs (SEK, year 2022) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from a healthcare perspective and discounted at 3% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the primary outcome. Results The P-score led to cost savings and generated an additional 0.19 QALYs compared with D’Amico. The added costs of the genetic test and higher costs of active surveillance and radiotherapy were counterbalanced by savings from reduced costs of surgery, treatment-related side-effects, and metastatic disease. The gain in QALYs was primarily due to the avoidance of metastatic disease and a reduction in treatment-related side-effects. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the P-score is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to D’Amico for prognostic evaluation of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden and compared with NPCR when health-related quality of life was included.