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 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.9%
2
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
24.4%
50% of probability mass above
3
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.3%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.9%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.9%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 51%
2.0%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 39%
1.8%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.6%
10
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.0%
12
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
13
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
14
The Prostate
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
15
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
16
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
17
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
18
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
22
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
70 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%