Back

Modelling the potential contributions of polygenic risk stratification to cost-effective screening for prostate cancer

Dixon, P.; Aning, J.; Martin, R.; Clements, M.

2025-05-22 health economics
10.1101/2025.05.19.25327897 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers globally. The potential for polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to improve risk stratification for early detection of PCA in screening interventions is of considerable interest. We evaluated the cost- effectiveness of PRS-guided screening strategies. MethodsThe Prostata microsimulation model, calibrated to UK-specific epidemiological and clinical data, simulated individual life histories, including disease onset and progression, tumour characteristics by Gleason score, and metastatic status. The model incorporated both measured and unmeasured components of polygenic risk for incident PCa, and included ancestry-specific strata. Screening strategies were compared against a no-screening baseline. We modelled one-off, age-based prostate specific antigen screening at 50, 60, or 70 years, as well as repeated uniform screening every 4 or 2 years from age 50 to 69 with and without PRS stratification. ResultsQuality-adjusted life years were similar across all screening strategies, while differences in costs were more pronounced. A "no screening" strategy had the lowest lifetime cost of all strategies and (very marginally) the shortest life expectancy. Realistic PRS implementations were dominated (less effective and more expensive) in all scenarios, and may not provide greater cost-effectiveness than a single PSA screen at age 50 or compared to no screening at all. ConclusionOur study found little evidence that PRSs would be cost-effective in pragmatic PCa screening settings.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.