A review of economic evaluations of diagnostic strategies using imaging in men at risk of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The role of imaging, particularly MRI, in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer is the focus of a rapidly developing body of clinical research. We identified five economic evaluations of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for diagnosing prostate cancer which report very different results. This review aims to explain why the reported cost-effectiveness of mpMRI varies so widely. FINDINGS: The studies evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mpMRI within different clinical pathways; before biopsy and after a negative biopsy. Although there were important differences in the questions posed, the studies also employed different assumptions about the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on survival and quality of life. SUMMARY: This review highlights the need for a better standard of reporting around key modelling assumptions. Also, a wider range of sensitivity analyses should explore the impact of these structural assumptions on the model results, in addition to the more commonly acknowledged uncertainty around data inputs for the model parameters.

Multiparametric MRI followed by targeted prostate biopsy for men with suspected prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic outcomes of the current approach of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in men with suspected prostate cancer to an alternative approach using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), followed by MRI-targeted biopsy if positive. DESIGN: Clinical decision analysis was used to synthesise data from recently emerging evidence in a format that is relevant for clinical decision making. POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of 1000 men with suspected prostate cancer. INTERVENTIONS: mpMRI and, if positive, MRI-targeted biopsy compared with TRUS-guided biopsy in all men. OUTCOME MEASURES: We report the number of men expected to undergo a biopsy as well as the numbers of correctly identified patients with or without prostate cancer. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out using Monte Carlo simulation to explore the impact of statistical uncertainty in the diagnostic parameters. RESULTS: In 1000 men, mpMRI followed by MRI-targeted biopsy 'clinically dominates' TRUS-guided biopsy as it results in fewer expected biopsies (600 vs 1000), more men being correctly identified as having clinically significant cancer (320 vs 250), and fewer men being falsely identified (20 vs 50). The mpMRI-based strategy dominated TRUS-guided biopsy in 86% of the simulations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that mpMRI followed by MRI-targeted biopsy is likely to result in fewer and better biopsies than TRUS-guided biopsy. Future research in prostate cancer should focus on providing precise estimates of key diagnostic parameters.