Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in Victoria, Australia; unintended consequences of changing Medicare Benefits Schedule access
Patrick Gordon A , Evan Urquhart A , Symrin Oad B , Kenneth Mackenzie A , Eldho Paul C and Philip McCahy
A B *
A
B
C
Abstract
To assess whether prostate biopsy rates have altered with the July 2018 change in Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) rebates supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for diagnosing prostate cancer.
Biopsy data (both trans-rectal and trans-perineal) were obtained from the Victorian Agency for Health Information from July 2016 to June 2022. The data were stratified by financial year, age group and hospital type (public vs private). Comparison was made between rates pre and post the mpMRI MBS code change.
There was an 11.9% increase in the number of biopsies performed per year compared to the pre-MBS change period. There is a significant decreasing trend (P < 0.001–4) in number of biopsies in the 40–49, 50–59 and 60–69-year-old age groups with a significant increasing trend (P < 0.001) in the 70–79 and 80–89-year-old age groups. There was a 32.9% reduction in the mean number of biopsies performed per year in public hospitals, compared with an 18.3% increase in private.
Contrary to expectations, and proposed funding, there has been an increase in the number of prostate biopsies since MRI became more easily available. This change will put increased pressure on the health budget and the large increase in biopsies in elderly patients was not anticipated when the changes were proposed. A review of the criteria is suggested.
Keywords: age-specific criteria, biopsy, database, health economics, life expectancy, magnetic resonance imaging, prostate neoplasms.
References
1 Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2019; 17(1): 31.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
2 Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389(10071): 815-22.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
3 Department of Health, Australian Government. New Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Items for multiparametric magnetic reasonance imaging (mpMRI) of the ptostate. 2018. Available at http://www.mbsonline.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.nsf/Content/Factsheet-MRIProstate
4 Medical Services Advisory Comittee (MSAC), Australian Government. 1397 - mpMRI prostate diagnostic scans. 2018 Available at http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/1397-public
5 Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(19): 1767-77.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
6 Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med 2021; 385(10): 908-20.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
7 Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 4(4): CD012663.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
8 Wagensveld IM, Osses DF, Groenendijk PM, Zijta FM, Busstra MB, Rociu E, et al. A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Study of Risk-adapted Ultrasound-directed and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men. Eur Urol 2022; 82(3): 318-26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
9 Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 2021; 79(2): 243-62.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
10 Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(15): 1425-37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
11 Heetman JG, Wever L, Paulino Pereira LJ, van den Bergh RCN. Clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis without histological proof: A possibility in the prostate-specific membrane antigen era? Eur Urol Open Sci 2022; 44: 30-32. 10.1016/j.euros.2022.06.013
13 Dell’Oglio P, Bishr M, Boehm K, Trudeau V, Larcher A, Tian Z, et al. Survival Outcomes in Octogenarian and Nonagenarian Patients Treated with First-line Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Organ-confined Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4(6): 834-41.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
14 Marotte D, Chand-Fouche M-E, Boulahssass R, Hannoun-Levi J-M. Irradiation of localized prostate cancer in the elderly: A systematic literature review. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 35: 1-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
16 Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective Study of Diagnostic Accuracy Comparing Prostate Cancer Detection by Transrectal Ultrasound–Guided Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging with Subsequent MR-guided Biopsy in Men Without Previous Prostate Biopsies. Eur Urol 2014; 66(1): 22-9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
17 Qin SS, Vinluan J, McCahy P. Analysis of potential clinical management issues in unreported mortality data from an Australian health service. ANZ J Surg 2023; 93: 1181-1184.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
18 Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Trock B, Punwani S, Allen C, Kirkham A, et al. Five-year Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Large Cohort Study. Eur Urol 2020; 78(3): 443-451.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
