Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Daniel A. Barocas (a1), Mark E. Bensink (a2), Kristin Berry (a2), Zahra Musa (a2), Carolyn Bodnar (a3), Robert Dann (a3) and Scott D. Ramsey (a4)...


Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess potential cost-effectiveness of using a prostate cancer specific functional imaging technology capable of identifying residual localized disease versus small volume metastatic disease for asymptomatic men with low but detectable prostate specific antigen (PSA) elevation following radical prostatectomy.

Methods: Markov modeling was used to estimate the incremental impact on healthcare system costs (2012 USD) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of two alternative strategies: (i) using the new diagnostic to guide therapy versus (ii) current usual care—using a combination of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scan to guide therapy. Costs were based on estimates from literature and Medicare reimbursement. Prostate cancer progression, survival, utilities, and background risk of all-cause mortality were obtained from literature. Base-case diagnostic sensitivity (75 percent), specificity (90 percent), and cost (USD 2,500) were provided by our industry partner GE Healthcare.

Results: The new diagnostic strategy provided an average gain of 1.83 (95 percent uncertainty interval [UI]: 1.24–2.64) QALYs with added costs of USD 15,595 (95 percent UI: USD -6,330–44,402) over 35 years. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 8,516/QALY (95 percent UI: USD -2,947–22,372). Results were most influenced by the utility discounting rate and test performance characteristics; however, the new diagnostic provided clinical benefits over a wide range of sensitivity and specificity.

Conclusion: This analysis suggests a diagnostic technology capable of identifying whether men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy have localized versus metastatic disease would be a cost-effective alternative to current standard work-up. The results support additional investment in development and validation of such a diagnostic.



Hide All
1. Nunn, AD. Molecular imaging and personalized medicine: An uncertain future. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2007;22:722739. PubMed PMID: 18158763.
2. Hillman, BJ, Goldsmith, JC. The uncritical use of high-tech medical imaging. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:46. PubMed PMID: ISI:000279343000002.
3. Congressional Budget Office. Budget options, volume I, health care 2008. (accessed April 3, 2012).
4. Government Accountability Office. GAO 08–452, Medicare Part B Imaging Services. Rapid spending growth and shift to physician offices indicate need for CMS to consider additional management practices 2008. (accessed April 3, 2012).
5. America's Health Insurance Plans. Ensuring quality through appropriate use of diagnostic imaging 2008. (accessed April 3, 2012).
6. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress. Medicare payment policy 2009. (accessed April 3, 2012).
7. Winter, A, Ray, N. Paying accurately for imaging services in Medicare. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:14791490.
8. Levin, DC, Rao, VM, Parker, L, Frangos, AJ, Sunshine, JH. Bending the curve: The recent marked slowdown in growth of noninvasive diagnostic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W25W29. PubMed PMID: 21178027.
9. Caire, AA, Sun, L, Ode, O, et al. Delayed prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: How to identify and what are their clinical outcomes? Urology. 2009;74:643–7. PubMed PMID: 19501891.
10. Stephenson, AJ, Shariat, SF, Zelefsky, MJ, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2004;291:13251332. PubMed PMID: 15026399.
11. Bensink, M, Wyatt, K, Musa, Z, et al. Using economic evaluation to guide technology development decisions in nuclear medicine: Functional imaging for identifying non-response to bevacizumab in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013. In press.
12. Sculpher, M, Drummond, M, Buxton, M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:2630.
13. Warburton, R. Patient saftey-how much is enough? Health Policy. 2005;75:223232.
14. Vallejo-Torres, L, Steuten, LM, Buxton, MJ, et al. Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: A Bayesian approach. Int J technol assess health care. 2008;24:459464. PubMed PMID: 18828941.
15. Schuster, DM, Nieh, PT, Jani, AB, et al. Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography and (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for recurrent prostate carcinoma: Results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2014;191:14461453.
16. Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:117122.
17. Stewart, ST, Lenert, L, Bhatnagar, V, Kaplan, RM. Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care. 2005;43:347355. PubMed PMID: 15778638.
18. Trock, BJ, Han, M, Freedland, SJ, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2008;299:27602769. PubMed PMID: 18560003. Pubmed Central PMCID: NIHMS283299.
19. Lu-Yao, G, Moore, DF, Oleynick, JU, DiPaola, RS, Yao, S-L. Population based study of hormonal therapy and survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer. J Urol. 2007;177:535539. PubMed PMID: 17222628.
20. Penson, DF, Moul, JW, Evans, CP, et al. The economic burden of metastatic and prostate specific antigen progression in patients with prostate cancer: Findings from a retrospective analysis of health plan data. J Urol. 2004;171 (Pt 1):22502254. PubMed PMID: 15126796.
21. Schuster, DM, Savir-Baruch, B, Nieh, PT, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma with anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT and 111In-capromab pendetide SPECT/CT. Radiology. 2011;259:852861.
22. Stephenson, AJ, Scardino, PT, Kattan, MW, et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:20352041.
23. Nanni, C, Schiavina, R, Boschi, S, et al. Comparison of 18F-FACBC and 11C-choline PET/CT in patients with radically treated prostate cancer and biochemical relapse: Preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1117.
24. Beresford, MJ, Gillatt, D, Benson, RJ, Ajithkumar, T. A systematic review of the role of imaging before salvage radiotherapy for post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010;22:4655. PubMed PMID: 19948393.
25. Giovacchini, G, Picchio, M, Briganti, A, et al. [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography to restage prostate cancer cases with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and no disease evidence on conventional imaging. J Urol. 2010;184:938943. PubMed PMID: 20643445.
26. Okotie, OT, Aronson, WJ, Wieder, JA, et al. Predictors of metastatic disease in men with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;171 (Pt 1):22602264. PubMed PMID: 15126798.
27. Arias, E. United States life tables, 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011;59:160. PubMed PMID: 22070012.
28. US Department of labor. Consumer price index medical (CPI-M) January 1947 to July 2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of labor statistics, US Department of labor; 2012.
29. Murphy, M. Proximity to death and health care costs. In: McGuire, A, Costa-Font, J, eds. The LSE companion to health policy. Northampton, MA: Edwards Elgar Publishing; 2012:221232.
30. Morrison, RS, Penrod, JD, Cassel, JB, et al. Cost savings associated with US hospital palliative care consultation programs. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1783–90. PubMed PMID: 18779466.
31. Tefilli, MV, Gheiler, EL, Tiguert, R, et al. Quality of life in patients undergoing salvage procedures for locally recurrent prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol. 1998;69:156161. PubMed PMID: 9846502.
32. Sanda, MG, Dunn, RL, Michalski, J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008 20;358:12501261. PubMed PMID: 18354103.
33. Kyrdalen, AE, Dahl, AA, Hernes, E, Småstuen, MC, Fosså, SD. A national study of adverse effects and global quality of life among candidates for curative treatment for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013;111:221232.
34. Potosky, AL, Davis, WW, Hoffman, RM, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: The prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1358–67. PubMed PMID: 15367568.
35. Lentzner, HR, Pamuk, ER, Rhodenhiser, EP, Rothenberg, R, Powell-Griner, E. The quality of life in the year before death. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:10931098. PubMed PMID: 1386195.
36. Liao, Y, McGee, DL, Cao, G, Cooper, RS. Quality of the last year of life of older adults: 1986 vs 1993. JAMA. 2000;283:512518. PubMed PMID: 10659878.
37. Benjamins, MR, Hummer, RA, Eberstein, IW, Nam, CB. Self-reported health and adult mortality risk: An analysis of cause-specific mortality. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:12971306. PubMed PMID: 15210100.
38. DeSalvo, KB, Fan, VS, McDonell, MB, Fihn, SD. Predicting mortality and healthcare utilization with a single question. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:12341246. PubMed PMID: 16033502.
39. Myint, PK, Luben, RN, Surtees, PG, et al. Relation between self-reported physical functional health and chronic disease mortality in men and women in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC-Norfolk): A prospective population study. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16:492500. PubMed PMID: 16005244.
40. Grosse, SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: History of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:165178. PubMed PMID: 20528406.
41. Torgerson, DJ, Raftery, J. Economic notes. Discounting. BMJ. 1999;319:914915. PubMed PMID: 10506056.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Barocas Supplementary Material
Figure S1

 Unknown (80 KB)
80 KB
Supplementary materials

Barocas Supplementary Material
Figure S2

 Unknown (130 KB)
130 KB
Supplementary materials

Barocas Supplementary Material
Figure S3

 Unknown (64 KB)
64 KB
Supplementary materials

Barocas Supplementary Material
Table S1

 Word (20 KB)
20 KB
Supplementary materials

Barocas Supplementary Material
Table S2

 Word (33 KB)
33 KB


  • Daniel A. Barocas (a1), Mark E. Bensink (a2), Kristin Berry (a2), Zahra Musa (a2), Carolyn Bodnar (a3), Robert Dann (a3) and Scott D. Ramsey (a4)...


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed