↓ Skip to main content

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40258-016-0278-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Keller, Christian Gericke, Jennifer A. Whitty, John Yaxley, Boon Kua, Geoff Coughlin, Troy Gianduzzo

Abstract

The Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening reduces prostate cancer deaths compared with an age-matched control group. Utilising the prostate cancer detection rates from this study, we investigated the clinical and cost effectiveness of a similar PSA-based screening strategy for an Australian population of men aged 50-69 years. A decision model that incorporated Markov processes was developed from a health system perspective. The base-case scenario compared a population-based screening programme with current opportunistic screening practices. Costs, utility values, treatment patterns and background mortality rates were derived from Australian data. All costs were adjusted to reflect July 2015 Australian dollars (A$). An alternative scenario compared systematic with opportunistic screening but with optimisation of active surveillance (AS) uptake in both groups. A discount rate of 5 % for costs and benefits was utilised. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of variable uncertainty on model outcomes. Our model very closely replicated the number of deaths from both prostate cancer and background mortality in the Göteborg study. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for PSA screening was A$147,528. However, for years of life gained (LYGs), PSA-based screening (A$45,890/LYG) appeared more favourable. Our alternative scenario with optimised AS improved cost utility to A$45,881/QALY, with screening becoming cost effective at a 92 % AS uptake rate. Both modelled scenarios were most sensitive to the utility of patients before and after intervention, and the discount rate used. PSA-based screening is not cost effective compared with Australia's assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY. It appears more cost effective if LYGs are used as the relevant outcome, and is more cost effective than the established Australian breast cancer screening programme on this basis. Optimised utilisation of AS increases the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening dramatically.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 28 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,281,438
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#86
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,111
of 316,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.