Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMerriel, SWD
dc.contributor.authorHall, R
dc.contributor.authorWalter, FM
dc.contributor.authorHamilton, W
dc.contributor.authorSpencer, AE
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-30T10:14:40Z
dc.date.issued2023-05-05
dc.date.updated2023-05-30T09:35:44Z
dc.description.abstractCONTEXT: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate has been shown to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, evidence is still evolving about how best to integrate prebiopsy MRI into the diagnostic pathway and for which patients, and whether MRI-based pathways are cost effective. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the cost effectiveness of prebiopsy MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: INTERTASC search strategies were adapted and combined with terms for prostate cancer and MRI, and used to search a wide range of databases and registries covering medicine, allied health, clinical trials, and health economics. No limits were set on country, setting, or publication year. Included studies were full economic evaluations of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways with at least one strategy including prebiopsy MRI. Model-based studies were assessed using the Philips framework, and trial-based studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 6593 records were screened after removing duplicates, and eight full-text papers, reporting on seven studies (two model based) were included in this review. Included studies were judged to have a low-to-moderate risk of bias. All studies reported cost-effectiveness analyses based in high-income countries but had significant heterogeneity in diagnostic strategies, patient populations, treatment strategies, and model characteristics. Prebiopsy MRI-based pathways were cost effective compared with pathways relying on ultrasound-guided biopsy in all eight studies. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of prebiopsy MRI into prostate cancer diagnostic pathways is likely to be more cost effective in than that into pathways relying on prostate-specific antigen and ultrasound-guided biopsy. The optimal prostate cancer diagnostic pathway design and method of integrating prebiopsy MRI are not yet known. Variations between health care systems and diagnostic approaches necessitate further evaluation for a particular country or setting to know how best to apply prebiopsy MRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at studies that measured the health care costs and benefits and harms to patients of using prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide whether men need a prostate biopsy for possible prostate cancer. We found that using prostate MRI before biopsy is likely to be less costly for health care services and probably has better outcomes for patients being investigated for prostate cancer. It is still unclear what the best way to use prostate MRI is.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipCancer Research UKen_GB
dc.format.extent123-134
dc.format.mediumElectronic-eCollection
dc.identifier.citationVol. 52, pp. 123-134en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.010
dc.identifier.grantnumberC8640/A23385en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/133246
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-8163-3103 (Spencer, Anne E)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37213242en_GB
dc.rights© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectDiagnostic pathwayen_GB
dc.subjectEconomic evaluationen_GB
dc.subjectHealth economicsen_GB
dc.subjectMagnetic resonance imagingen_GB
dc.subjectProstate canceren_GB
dc.titleSystematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Economic Evaluations of Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathways Incorporating Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imagingen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2023-05-30T10:14:40Z
dc.identifier.issn1569-9056
exeter.place-of-publicationNetherlands
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData sharing: Data are available for bona fide researchers who request it from the authors.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2666-1683
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Urology Open Scienceen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofEur Urol Open Sci, 52
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-03-29
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-05-05
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2023-05-30T10:12:05Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2023-05-30T10:14:46Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article
under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).