Skip to main content

Table 3 Model characteristics

From: Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models

Study

Model-type

Natural history model

By (TNM) stage of cancer?

TNM staging used

Differentiation by Gleason grade?

Gleason grading used

Time horizon

Deterministic sensitivity analysis

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis

Chilcott et al. [23]

Individual patient simulation

No

Yes

Localised (T1–2), Locally advanced (T3–4) and metastatic

Yes

(G < 7, G = 7, G > 7)

lifetime

Yes

Yes

Heijnsdijk et al. [25]

Individual patient simulation

Yes -MISCAN

Yes

18 stages: each tumour stage (T1,2 etc) modelled individually

Yes

(G < 7, G = 7, G > 7)

lifetime

Yes

No

Hummel and Chilcott [24]

Individual patient simulation and cohort

No

Yes

Localised (T1–2), Locally advanced (T3–4) and metastatic

Yes

(G < 7, G = 7, G > 7)

lifetime

Yes

No

Keller et al. [29]

Cohort model

No

Yes

Low (≤T1a), intermediate (≤T2b), high risk (>T2b) and metastatic

Yes

G ≤ 6, G ≤ 7, G > 7

up to 70 years

Yes

Yes

Kobayashi et al. [27]

Markov cycle tree (cohort)

No

Yes

Localised (T1–2), Locally advanced (T3–4) and metastatic

No

–

up to 80 years old

Yes

No

Martin et al. [30]

Cohort model

No

No

None

No

–

50 years (lifetime)

Yes

No

Pataky et al. [26]

Individual patient simulation

Yes -adapted FHCRC

Yes

Locoregional (≤T2a vs > T2)

distant disease

Assumed Yesa

Not reported

assumed lifetime

Yes

No

Roth et al. [28]

Individual patient simulation

Yes -adapted FHCRC

Yes

Locoregional (≤T2a vs > T2)

distant disease

Yesa

Indirectly (8–10/ 2–7)

lifetime

Yes

Yes

Wolstenholme et al. [31]

Cohort model

No

Yes

Localised (T1–2), Locally advanced (T3–4) and metastatic

No

–

lifetime(100 years old)

Yes

Yes

Shteynshlyuger & Andriole, [22]

Population based model

–

Yes

No details provided

–

–

lifetime

Yes

No

  1. a Based on values derived from the natural history, but Gleason is not explicitly modelled in the model-based economic evaluation