[Screening for prostatic carcinoma in dysuric patients: diagnostic protocols and cost-benefit analysis]

This work deals with our experience of a programme of early diagnosis of prostate cancer carried out on patients suffering from dysuria through rectal-digital examination (EDR), hematic dosage of PSA (IRMA COAT-A-COUNT DPC) and transrectal echtomography. We have also quantified the costs and verified which methods, either single or combined with other methods, are most advantageous as regards costs/benefits. From Jan 1991 to Jan 1995 306 of 1185 patients (25.8%) underwent prostate biopsy by means of transperineal echograph with gauge 18 needles as in Hodge's technique. Histologic examination revealed prostate adenocarcinoma in 81 (26.5%) cases, benign prostate hypertrophy in 196 (64%), acute and/or chronic phlogosis in 26 (8.5%) and granulomatosic prostatitis in 3 (1%). The diagnostic sensitivity, preciseness and accuracy were, respectively, 92.5%, 78.3%, 79.3% for the EDR, 80.2%, 93.3% and 90% for PSA with cut-off 10 ng/ml, 91% 78.3%, and 90% for the PSA with cut-off 4 ng/ml, 100%, 30.3% and 48.6% for the echograph, 98.8%, 60% and 77% for EDR+PSA (cut-off 4 ng/ml), 98.8%, 65.8 and 79.9% for EDR+PSA (cut-off 10 ng/ml), 100%, 22% and 64.2% for EDR+echograph, 100%, 20% and 62.9% for echograph+PSA (cut-off 4 ng/ml), 100%, 26.6% and 64.9% for echograph+PSA (cut-off 10 ng/ml). We calculated that a programme of early diagnosis using the three methods, if completely at the patient's expense, would cost 207.000-437.000 lire (average 322.000) per patient for a total of 245,295,000-517,845,000 (average 381,570,000). An eco-guided prostate biopsy with a histologic examination would cost 250.000-500.000 lire (average 375.000) per patient with a total cost for 306 patients of 76,500,000-153,000,000 (average 114,750,000). We also quantified, in the light of the results reported here, the number of biopsied which would have been necessary if we had used only two methods in the screening and we also estimated the costs. The results reveal that the echograph is not to be considered as a first approach method as it gives a high number of false positive results; in fact if we had excluded it from the screening we would not have ignored any diagnosis of prostate neoplasia and we would have avoided about 141 (46.2%) biopsied with a reduction in health expenditure of 62.1%. On the contrary the EDR and the PSA have a better cost/benefit result: setting the cut-off of the PSA at 4 ng/ml or at 10 ng/ml without varying the diagnostic accuracy, the sensitivity and/or specificity of the method increase respectively. To conclude, we consider the EDR and the serum dosage of PSA necessary and adequate methods in the programme of early diagnosis and screening of prostate neoplasy. The prostate echography should be reserved for cases of doubt (hematic PSA between 4-10 ng/ml etc.) and for the exclusion of needle biopsy. These measures also result in an optimization of health expenditure.