Lifetime Health and Economic Outcomes of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging As First-Line Screening for Prostate Cancer : A Decision Model Analysis

Overview

Journal Ann Intern Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Jun 3

PMID 38830219

Authors

Roman Gulati

Boshen Jiao

Raad Al-Faouri

Vidit Sharma

Sumedh Kaul

Aaron Fleishman

Kevin Wymer

Stephen A Boorjian

Aria F Olumi

Ruth Etzioni

Boris Gershman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Contemporary prostate cancer (PCa) screening uses first-line prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, possibly followed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for men with elevated PSA levels. First-line biparametric MRI (bpMRI) screening has been proposed as an alternative.

Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line bpMRI versus PSA-based screening.

Design: Decision analysis using a microsimulation model.

Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database; randomized trials.

Target Population: U.S. men aged 55 years with no prior screening or PCa diagnosis.

Time Horizon: Lifetime.

Perspective: U.S. health care system.

Intervention: Biennial screening to age 69 years using first-line PSA testing (test-positive threshold, 4 µg/L) with or without second-line mpMRI or first-line bpMRI (test-positive threshold, PI-RADS [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System] 3 to 5 or 4 to 5), followed by biopsy guided by MRI or MRI plus transrectal ultrasonography.

Outcome Measures: Screening tests, biopsies, diagnoses, overdiagnoses, treatments, PCa deaths, quality-adjusted and unadjusted life-years saved, and costs.

Results Of Base-case Analysis: For 1000 men, first-line bpMRI versus first-line PSA testing prevented 2 to 3 PCa deaths and added 10 to 30 life-years (4 to 11 days per person) but increased the number of biopsies by 1506 to 4174 and the number of overdiagnoses by 38 to 124 depending on the biopsy imaging scheme. At conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds, first-line PSA testing with mpMRI followed by either biopsy approach for PI-RADS 4 to 5 produced the greatest net monetary benefits.

Results Of Sensitivity Analysis: First-line PSA testing remained more cost-effective even if bpMRI was free, all men with low-risk PCa underwent surveillance, or screening was quadrennial.

Limitation: Performance of first-line bpMRI was based on second-line mpMRI data.

Conclusion: Decision analysis suggests that comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PCa screening are driven by false-positive results and overdiagnoses, favoring first-line PSA testing with mpMRI over first-line bpMRI.

Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

References

Roth J, Gulati R, Gore J, Cooperberg M, Etzioni R . Economic Analysis of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and Selective Treatment Strategies. JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2(7):890-8. PMC: 4945414. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6275. View

Bass E, Pantovic A, Connor M, Gabe R, Padhani A, Rockall A . A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020; 24(3):596-611. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-00298-w. View

Pahwa S, Schiltz N, Ponsky L, Lu Z, Griswold M, Gulani V . Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men. Radiology. 2017; 285(1):157-166. PMC: 5621719. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162181. View

Eklund M, Jaderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M . MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med. 2021; 385(10):908-920. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852. View

Heijnsdijk E, de Carvalho T, Auvinen A, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M . Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 107(1):366. PMC: 4296196. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju366. View

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko A, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse L, Vaarala M . MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(19):1767-1777. PMC: 9084630. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. View

Martin R, Donovan J, Turner E, Metcalfe C, Young G, Walsh E . Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018; 319(9):883-895. PMC: 5885905. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.0154. View

Alabousi M, Salameh J, Gusenbauer K, Samoilov L, Jafri A, Yu H . Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2019; 124(2):209-220. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14759. View

Gulati R, Inoue L, Katcher J, Hazelton W, Etzioni R . Calibrating disease progression models using population data: a critical precursor to policy development in cancer control. Biostatistics. 2010; 11(4):707-19. PMC: 2950791. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq036. View

10.

van der Leest M, Israel B, Cornel E, Zamecnik P, Schoots I, van der Lelij H . High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(5):574-581. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.05.029. View

11.

Heijnsdijk E, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, Lange J, Mariotto A, Vickers A . Lifetime Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020; 112(10):1013-1020. PMC: 7566340. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa001. View

12.

Eldred-Evans D, Ahmed H . Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography-The IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study-Reply. JAMA Oncol. 2021; 7(10):1575-1576. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2967. View

13.

Barnett C, Davenport M, Montgomery J, Wei J, Montie J, Denton B . Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018; 122(1):50-58. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14151. View

14.

Etzioni R, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, Wever E, Penson D, Heijnsdijk E . The prostate cancer conundrum revisited: treatment changes and prostate cancer mortality declines. Cancer. 2012; 118(23):5955-63. PMC: 3424303. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27594. View

15.

Marsden T, McCartan N, Hadley J, Tuck S, Brown L, Haire A . Update from the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study NCT04063566: Inviting Men for Prostate Cancer Screening Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7(3):503-505. PMC: 7614671. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.03.027. View

16.

Gulati R, Morgan T, Amar T, Psutka S, Tosoian J, Etzioni R . Overdiagnosis and Lives Saved by Reflex Testing Men With Intermediate Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019; 112(4):384-390. PMC: 7156927. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz127. View

17.

Matoso A, Epstein J . Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology. 2018; 74(1):135-145. DOI: 10.1111/his.13712. View

18.

Loeb S, Bjurlin M, Nicholson J, Tammela T, Penson D, Carter H . Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014; 65(6):1046-55. PMC: 4113338. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062. View

19.

Dinan M, Li Y, Zhang Y, Stewart S, Curtis L, George D . Resource Use in the Last Year of Life Among Patients Who Died With Versus of Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015; 14(1):28-37.e2. PMC: 4698191. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.07.006. View

20.

Ahmed H, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar M . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. View