Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1952
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFreydenberg, Mark-
dc.contributor.authorLawrentschuk, Nathan-
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Declan-
dc.contributor.otherde Feria Cardet, Rafael-
dc.contributor.otherHofman, Michael-
dc.contributor.otherSegard, Tatiana-
dc.contributor.otherYim, Jackie-
dc.contributor.otherWilliams, Scott-
dc.contributor.otherFrancis, Roslyn-
dc.contributor.otherDe Abreu Lourenco, Richard-
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-22T02:16:29Z-
dc.date.available2021-01-22T02:16:29Z-
dc.date.issued2020-12-
dc.identifier.citationEur Urol . 2020 Dec 16;S0302-2838(20)30946-5en_US
dc.identifier.issn0302-283en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1952-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Before integrating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) into routine care, it is important to assess if the benefits justify the differences in resource use. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PSMA-PET/CT when compared with conventional imaging. Design, setting, and participants: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using data from the proPSMA study. proPSMA included patients with high-risk prostate cancer assigned to conventional imaging or 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with planned health economics data collected. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an Australian societal perspective. Intervention: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (CT and bone scan). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome from proPSMA was diagnostic accuracy (nodal and distant metastases). This informed a decision tree analysis of the cost per accurate diagnosis. Results and limitations: The estimated cost per scan for PSMA PET/CT was AUD$1203, which was less than the conventional imaging cost at AUD$1412. PSMA PET/CT was thus dominant, having both better accuracy and a lower cost. This resulted in a cost of AUD$959 saved per additional accurate detection of nodal disease, and AUD$1412 saved for additional accurate detection of distant metastases. The results were most sensitive to variations in the number of men scanned for each 68Ga-PSMA-11 production run. Subsequent research is required to assess the long-term costs and benefits of PSMA PET/CT-directed care. Conclusions: PSMA PET/CT has lower direct comparative costs and greater accuracy compared to conventional imaging for initial staging of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This provides a compelling case for adopting PSMA PET/CT into clinical practice. Patient summary: The proPSMA study demonstrated that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) better detects disease that has spread beyond the prostate compared with conventional imaging. Our analysis shows that PSMA PET/CT is also less costly than conventional imaging for the detection of disease spread. This research was presented at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Scientific Meeting in October 2020en_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectProstate-Specific Membrane Antigenen_US
dc.subjectPSMAen_US
dc.subjectPositron Emission Tomographyen_US
dc.subjectComputed Tomographyen_US
dc.subjectCost-Effectivenessen_US
dc.subjectImagingen_US
dc.subjectEconomic Evaluationen_US
dc.subjectHigh Risken_US
dc.subjectProstate Canceren_US
dc.subjectMetastasesen_US
dc.subjectproPSMA Studyen_US
dc.subjectScanen_US
dc.subjectStagingen_US
dc.subjectAccuracyen_US
dc.subjectEJ Whitten Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourneen_US
dc.subjectUroRenal, Vascular Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleIs prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging cost-effective in prostate cancer: An analysis informed by the proPSMA Trialen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.043en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleEuropean Urologyen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33341285/en_US
dc.description.affiliatesCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSir Charles Gardiner Hospital, Perth, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDivision of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesAustralian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Camperdown, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesCabrini Institute, Cabrini Health, Malvern, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialReviewen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:UroRenal, Vascular

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.