Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of two diagnostic strategies for prostate cancer in men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 4–10 ng/ml and normal digital rectal examination (DRE). Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a decision tree model. Data collection and a systematic review of patients at the Urology Department (Carlos Haya Hospital) were made. 101 patients over the age of 40 with PSA levels of 4–10 ng/ml and normal DRE were selected. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) and percent free PSA testing prior to TRUS-Bx were performed. The outcome measures used were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and costs were calculated through activity-based costing. The effectiveness was measured by means of the number of detected cases, test utility and actual cases (detected cases minus lost cases). Results: Using base-case analysis, the strategy of percent free PSA + TRUS-Bx was found to be the most cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for free PSA + TRUS-Bx compared with TRUS-Bx was EUR 2,277.40. Strategy 2 (TRUS-Bx) would be more cost-effective if the cost of percent free PSA increased to EUR 21.64 or if prostate cancer prevalence increased to 26%. Conclusions: The use of percent free PSA prior to TRUS-Bx is the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy. However, this result is very sensitive and strategy 2 (TRUS-Bx) would be more cost-effective if the cost of the percent free PSA increased to EUR 21.64 or if the prevalence of prostate cancer increased to above 26%.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Prostate-specific antigen, percent free, Cost analysis
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
2007
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.