Selected Publications
Since 2025
2025
Cost effectiveness analysis of prostate cancer screening strategies in Germany: A microsimulation study.
International Jornal of Cancer (2025), Doi: 10.1002/ijc.35513 (Epub ahead of print).
Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant public health challenge in Germany, with increasing incidence and economic impact. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of 10 screening strategies: prostate-specific antigen-based risk-adaptive screening (PSA-RAS), with or without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in men starting at age 45 or 50 and stopping at 60 or 70, digital rectal examination (DRE) for ages 45-75 years, and no screening. Using a well calibrated microsimulation model (Swedish Prostata) from a statutory health insurance perspective, lifetime outcomes were evaluated, including cancer incidence, mortality, overdiagnosis, biopsies, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) discounted annually at 3%. Cost and utility inputs were derived from the German diagnostic-related group schedule, fee-for-service catalogues, literature, and expert opinion. DRE-only was the least cost-effective, yielding high biopsy and overdiagnosis rates with minimal QALY gains. PSA-RAS reduced overdiagnosis and biopsy rates, with PSA-RAS (50-60 years) without MRI emerging as the most cost-efficient strategy, saving approximately €1.2 million per 100,000 men compared with no screening. Extending the PSA-RAS to 70 years improved its effectiveness in terms of QALYs. PSA-RAS (50-70) with MRI could become cost-effective at an increasing willingness to pay threshold or decreasing MRI cost. This study suggests the potential of PSA-RAS to improve PCa screening in Germany. Incorporating MRI, reducing MRI cost within the screening setting, and extending screening to 70 to align with EU recommendations could improve the cost-effectiveness of PSA-RAS with MRI. Future research should explore the integration of MRI with ancillary tests, such as 4K-score or risk calculators, to reduce MRI use and associated costs.
- Download (1.5 MiB)
Population health impact of NICE-recommended new drugs.
Lancet (2025), 405(10497): 2276.
- Download (71.6 KiB)
Krebs als Armutsrisiko.
Im Fokus Onkologie (2025), 28: 1.
[Editorial]
- Download (114.3 KiB)
Measuring the Socioeconomic Impact of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Standardized Assessment of Patient‑Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments.
PharmacoEconomics - Open (2025), Doi: 10.1007/s41669-025-00568-0 (Epub ahead of print).
Background: A number of instruments have been developed to measure the socioeconomic impact (SEI) of cancer. A standardized comparison of the quality and content validity of these instruments is lacking. This study aimed to (1) conduct a standardized assessment of the quality of SEI instruments and (2) assess the content validity of these instruments using the conceptual framework developed by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) for SEI analysis.
Method: We identified articles measuring the SEI of cancer with ad hoc and/or validated instruments from an existing database. These articles were the initial pearls in a systematic review of published articles that applied and validated these instruments using the pearl-growing search strategy in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool was utilized to provide quantitative assessment and comparison of the quality of identified instruments. To examine content validity, we allocated each instrument's items against the themes and sub-themes of the established conceptual framework for SEI analysis.
Results: We identified and investigated 21 validation studies using nine original instruments. The number of articles varied significantly among the identified instruments. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument was the most frequently used, validated in ten different settings, whereas some newer instruments have not been applied yet. This variation resulted in significant differences in EMPRO overall scores among these instruments. Regarding content validity, we found that not all themes of the OECI framework were covered by the content of the instruments.
Conclusion: The quality and the application of instruments measuring the SEI of cancer varied significantly. The content of the instruments seems not to cover all related themes of the applied OECI framework in this study. Further studies are warranted to confirm the quality and content validity of the instruments measuring the SEI of cancer.
- Download (1.4 MiB)