Hospital encounters and associated costs of prostate evaluation for clinically important disease

MRI vs. standard evaluation procedures (PRECISE) study from a provincial-payer perspective

Authors

  • Soo Jin Seung HOPE Research Centre, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto
  • Hasnain Saherawala HOPE Research Centre, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto
  • Lena Nguyen ICES Central, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto
  • Jodi M. Gatley ICES Central, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto
  • Ning Liu ICES Central, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto
  • Marlene Kebabdjian Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto
  • Craig Earle Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto
  • Laurence Klotz Department of Surgery, University of Toronto
  • Nicole Mittmann Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8197

Keywords:

health economics, prostate cancer, Diagnostics, Canada

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Systematic transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy has been the standard diagnostic tool for prostate cancer (PCa) but is subject to limitations, such as a high false-negative rate of cancer detection. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to biopsy is emerging as an alternative diagnostic procedure for PCa. The PRECISE study found that MRI followed by a targeted biopsy was more accurately able to identify clinically significant cancer than TRUS biopsy.

METHODS: PRECISE study patients recruited in Ontario between January 2017 and November 2019 were linked to various Ontario provincial administrative databases available at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences (ICES) to determine health resources used, associated costs, and hospitalizations in the 14 days after biopsy. Costs are presented in 2021 CAD.

RESULTS: A total of 281 males were included in this study, with 48.4% of the patients in the TRUS biopsy group, 28.1% in the MRI+, and 23.5% in the MRI- group. Twenty-one patients (15%) from the TRUS biopsy group were seen at a hospital in the 14 days after their biopsy compared to fewer than five patients (6%) from the MRI+ group. The mean per person per year (PPPY) costs for the TRUS and all MRI groups (MRI- and MRI+) were $7828 and $8525, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the TRUS biopsy group experienced more hospital encounters compared to patients who received an MRI prior to their biopsy. This economic analysis suggests that MRI imaging prior to biopsy is not associated with a significant increase in costs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2023-05-30

How to Cite

Seung, S. J. ., Saherawala, H., Nguyen, L., Gatley, J. M., Liu, N., Kebabdjian, M., Earle, C. ., Klotz, L., & Mittmann, N. (2023). Hospital encounters and associated costs of prostate evaluation for clinically important disease: MRI vs. standard evaluation procedures (PRECISE) study from a provincial-payer perspective. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 17(8), 280–4. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8197

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 8 (2023): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.