Costs of screening for prostate cancer : Evidence from the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer after 20-year follow-up using register data

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/301250

Citation

Booth , N , Rissanen , P , Tammela , T L J , Taari , K , Talala , K & Auvinen , A 2018 , ' Costs of screening for prostate cancer : Evidence from the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer after 20-year follow-up using register data ' , European Journal of Cancer , vol. 93 , pp. 108-118 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.01.111

Title: Costs of screening for prostate cancer : Evidence from the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer after 20-year follow-up using register data
Author: Booth, Neill; Rissanen, Pekka; Tammela, Teuvo L. J.; Taari, Kimmo; Talala, Kirsi; Auvinen, Anssi
Contributor: University of Helsinki, Clinicum
Date: 2018-04
Language: eng
Number of pages: 11
Belongs to series: European Journal of Cancer
ISSN: 0959-8049
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/301250
Abstract: Objectives: Few empirical analyses of the impact of organised prostate cancer (PCa) screening on healthcare costs exist, despite cost-related information often being considered as a prerequisite to informed screening decisions. Therefore, we estimate the differences in register-based costs of publicly funded healthcare in the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) after 20 years. Methods: We obtained individual-level register data on prescription medications, as well as inpatient and outpatient care, to estimate healthcare costs for 80,149 men during the first 20 years of the FinRSPC. We compared healthcare costs for the men in each trial arm and performed statistical analysis. Results: For all men diagnosed with PCa during the 20-year observation period, mean PCa-related costs appeared to be around 10% lower in the screening arm (SA). Mean all-cause healthcare costs for these men were also lower in the SA, but differences were smaller than for PCa-related costs alone, and no longer statistically significant. For men dying from PCa, although the difference was not statistically significant, mean all-cause healthcare costs were around 10% higher. When analysis included all observations, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the CA; however, after excluding extreme values, cumulative costs were slightly higher in the SA. Conclusions: No major cost impacts due to screening were apparent, but the FinRSPC's 20-year follow-up period is too short to provide definitive evidence at this stage. Longer term follow-up will be required to be better informed about the costs of, or savings from, introducing mass PCa screening. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Subject: Prostatic neoplasms
Prostate-specific antigen
Mass screening Randomised
controlled trial
Costs and cost analysis
PRACTICES TASK-FORCE
ECONOMIC-EVALUATION
TRIAL
FINLAND
QUALITY
CARE
3122 Cancers
3142 Public health care science, environmental and occupational health
3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
Rights:


Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
1_s2.0_S0959804918301564_main.pdf 1.523Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record