Interest in, willingness-to-pay for and willingness-to-recommend genetic testing for prostate cancer among affected men after radical prostatectomy

How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify how value is defined in studies that focus on the value of molecular testing in cancer and the extent to which broadening the conceptualisation of value in healthcare has been applied in the molecular testing literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Medline, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in August 2023. Articles were eligible if they reported costs relative to outcomes, novel costs, or novel outcomes of molecular testing in cancer. Results were synthesised and qualitative content analysis was performed with deductive and inductive frameworks.

RESULTS

Ninety-one articles were included in the review. The majority (75/91) were conventional economic analyses (comparative economic evaluations and budget impact assessments) and undertaken from a healthcare system perspective (38/91). Clinical outcomes dominate the assessment of value (61/91), with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) the most common outcome measure (45/91). Other definitions of value were diverse (e.g. psychological impact, access to trials), inconsistent, and largely not in keeping with evolving guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader concepts of value were not commonly described in the molecular testing literature focusing on cancer. Conventional approaches to measuring the health costs and outcomes of molecular testing in cancer prevail with little focus on non-clinical elements of value. There are emerging reports of non-clinical outcomes of testing information, particularly psychological consequences. Intrinsic attributes of the testing process and preferences of those who receive testing information may determine the realised societal value of molecular testing and highlight challenges to implementing such a value framework.

Factor associated with willingness to pay for prevention of cancer: a study of prostate cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates Iranian men's willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and influencing factor, along with the impact of information.

METHOD

We assessed preferences for prostate cancer screening in 771 Iranian men aged 40 and above using an internet-based questionnaire survey. Participants received basic and complementary information, and their willingness to pay was determined through a payment card approach. A Wilcoxon test assessed the impact of information. We also analyzed prostate cancer screening demand and employed Heckman's two-step model to evaluate factors influencing the willingness to pay. Additionally, reasons for unwillingness to pay were explored.

RESULTS

Willingness to pay significantly decreased with complementary information relative to basic information (16.3$ vs 17.8$). Heckman model, using WTP based on basic information shows age, education, and monthly household expenditure positively influenced the decision to pay. In contrast, health status, expectations of remaining life and prostate problems history positively affect amount of WTP for PCa screening, and insurance coverage has a negative impact on it. Majority of respondents (91%) supported PCa screening, with 82% expressing a willingness to pay. Common reasons for not paying include seeing screening as a public good (43%), financial constraints (35%), and having insurance (20%). The screening demand is price-sensitive.

CONCLUSION

The basic mindset of Iranian men exaggerates the risk of prostate cancer. Reduced willingness to pay after receiving information reassures the reliability of their financial expectation. Taking into account the factors that influence PCa screening is essential for accurate planning and the successful implementation of this program.

Male awareness of prostate cancer risk remains poor in relatives of women with germline variants in DNA-repair genes

Abstract.

Objective

The aim of this study is to evaluate male awareness of developing prostate cancer (PCa) in families with germline DNA-repair genes (DRG) variants.

Materials and methods

Data were collected from a prospective, monocentric cohort study. The study was conducted in a university hospital with a multidisciplinary approach to the patient (collaboration of the Departments of Oncology, Urology, Pathology, Radiology, and Medical Genetics Laboratory). We recruited healthy males, relatives of families of women with breast or ovarian cancer who tested positive for pathogenic variants (PVs) or likely pathogenic variants (LPVs) in DRGs. A dedicated PCa screening was designed and offered to men aged 35 to 69 years, based on early visits with digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate health index (PHI) measurement, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and, if necessary, targeted/systematic prostate biopsies. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the willingness of healthy men from families with a DRG variants detected in female relatives affected with breast and/or ovarian cancer to be tested for the presence of familial PVs. The secondary endpoints were the acceptance to participate if resulted positive and compliance with the screening programme.

Results

Over 1256 families, of which 139 resulted positive for PVs in DRGs, we identified 378 'healthy' men aged between 35 and 69 years old. Two hundred sixty-one (69.0%) refused to be tested for DRG variants, 66 (17.5%) declared to have been previously tested, and 51 (13.5%) males were interested to be tested. Between those previously tested and those who accepted to be tested, 62 (53.0%) were positive for a DRG variant, and all of them accepted to participate in the subsequent surveillance steps. The main limitation is that is a single-centre study and a short follow-up.

Conclusions

All men tested positive for a DRG variants agreed to go under the surveillance scheme. However, only 31% of 'men at risk' (i.e., relative of a DRG variant carrier) expressed their willingness to be tested for the familial DRG variant. This observation strongly supports the urgent need to implement awareness of genetic risk for PCa within the male population.

Cost-benefit analysis of kidney transplant in patients with chronic kidney disease: a case study in Iran

Background

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a health problem due to its increasing prevalence and imposes a significant economic burden on the health system. This study aimed to analyze the cost–benefit of kidney transplantation through the valuation of patients with ESRD for a kidney transplant and its costs to help decide this regard.

Material and methods

This study was a descriptive-analytical and cross-sectional economic evaluation study of health interventions performed in Imam Khomeini Hospital in Urmia from the patient’s perspective. The records of kidney recipients were used to calculate the direct costs of kidney transplantation based on the government tariff rate in 2021. The willingness to pay for kidney transplantation (benefit) was measured through a questionnaire and with a contingent valuation method from 266 samples of patients with ESRD. The questionnaire designed by the researchers had four scenarios with different chances for kidney transplant success. Validation and test–retest methods were used to check the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Stata software was used to estimate the regression of the factors affecting the willingness to pay and the kidney transplant demand function.

Results

The average cost of a kidney transplant was $877.4. The average willingness to pay for a kidney transplant for four scenarios was estimated at $4733. The mean cost–benefit ratio (BCR) and net present value (NPV) for the four kidney transplant scenarios were 5.39 and $3855. The variables of employment status, awareness of kidney function, number of years with ESRD, insurance coverage, and patients’ income significantly affected their willingness to pay. However, the effect of other variables was not significant. The absolute value of price elasticity of kidney transplant demand was also equal to 2.13.

Conclusion

According to the cost–benefit analysis indexes, the study results showed that a kidney transplant has a net positive benefit for all levels of its probability of success, so the willingness to pay or valuation of patients is about five times the cost of a kidney transplant. Also, the demand for kidney transplantation shows the high sensitivity of the demand for this service to the price. Therefore, preparations for kidney transplantation in patients with ESRD should be considered in situations where the price and cost of transplantation change. The results can help health policy-makers decide to allocate financial resources more efficiently.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00372-1.

Men's willingness to pay for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to review studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for prostate cancer screening.

METHODS

This systematic-review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. By searching six-health-database, WTP studies on prostate cancer screening using contingent valuation method published in English until March 2020 were included and those with unavailable full-text and inadequate quality-assessment scores were excluded. Smith checklist was used for the quality assessment. Extracted WTPs were converted to US dollar in 2018 using exchange rate parity and net present value formula to make comparison. Factors' effect was assessed by vote counting.

RESULTS

Six final studies published after 2006 reported above 70% Smith checklist items needed to be considered in contingent valuation study reports. Seven factors have positive effects on WTP. The reported WTP value varied from 11$ to 588$ in Japan and Germany, respectively.

CONCLUSION

WTP for prostate cancer screening was positive among all studied men. The results of factors' effect assessment showed that better understanding prostate cancer risks or screening tests and factors such as age, income, family history of cancer, hospitalization history, and educational level have positive effects. Moreover, prostate-specific antigen history, health insurance, employment, and subject's health assessment received less attention. The results' generalization to all countries is not applicable because there are no studies for low- and middle-income countries.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172789.