Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: A cost comparison

被引:50
|
作者
Eldefrawy, Ahmed [1 ]
Katkoori, Devendar [1 ]
Abramowitz, Matthew [2 ]
Soloway, Mark S. [1 ]
Manoharan, Murugesan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Miami, Miller Sch Med, Dept Urol, Miami, FL 33101 USA
[2] Univ Miami, Miller Sch Med, Dept Radiat Oncol, Miami, FL 33101 USA
关键词
Cost analysis; Radical prostatectomy; Active surveillance; Radiation therapy; Markov model; Low-risk prostate cancer; HEALTH-CARE COSTS; ACUTE TOXICITY; RADIOTHERAPY;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.04.005
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy are standard curative approaches for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Active surveillance (AS) is becoming an increasingly accepted management alternative for low-risk PC. Our aim is to compare the cumulative medical costs of treatment vs. AS. Methods and materials: We collected data on the cumulative medical costs of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (REP), robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), and AS at our institution. For physicians' reimbursements, Medicare values of our region were used to maintain uniformity. For inpatient costs other than reimbursements, we used the mean cost at our institution. The costs of RRP and RARP involve preoperative investigations, medical clearance, physicians' fees, inpatient costs, and pathologic examination of prostatectomy specimen and follow-up. The inpatient costs include the operating room, disposable equipment, anesthesia, post-anesthesia care, transfusion, and hospital stay. The cost of EBRT involves the cost of consultation, planning, simulation and treatment sessions, and follow-up. BT costs involved radiotherapy planning as well as inpatients costs. AS protocol involves regular visits, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies, prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing. To evaluate the cost of treating complications, treatment after AS, and treatment for recurrence, we created a Markov model based on recent studies and our experience. Results: The cumulative costs of RRP are $9,732 (I year), $10,360 (2 years), $12,209 (5 years), and $15,084 (10 years). While for RARP, the costs are $17,824 (1 year), $18,308 (2 years), $20,117 (5 years), and $22,762 (10 years). The costs of EBRT are $20,730 (1 year), $20,969 (2 years), $22,043 (5 years), and $23,953 (10 years). BT costs are $14,061 (1 year), $14,300 (2 years), $15,374 (5 years), and $17,284 (10 years). The costs of AS are $1,154 (1 year), $2,308 (2 years), $8,761 (5 years), and $13,116 (10 years). Conclusions: The cumulative medical costs of RARP and EBRT are much higher than BT, RRP, and AS. AS is associated with a different cost distribution in which the initial cost is low and relatively higher cost of follow-up. Despite the higher follow-up cost, AS remains the most cost effective alternative for low-risk PC. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:576 / 580
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER: ACTIVE TREATMENT OR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE?
    Tomaskovic, Igor
    ACTA CLINICA CROATICA, 2015, 54 (03) : 337 - 344
  • [32] Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study
    Taylor, Kathryn L.
    Luta, George
    Zotou, Vasiliki
    Lobo, Tania
    Hoffman, Richard M.
    Davis, Kimberly M.
    Potosky, Arnold L.
    Li, Tengfei
    Aaronson, David
    Van Den Eeden, Stephen K.
    BJUI COMPASS, 2022, 3 (03): : 226 - 237
  • [33] Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Are All Criteria Similar?
    Cimino, Sebastiano
    Privitera, Salvatore
    Favilla, Vincenzo
    Cantiello, Francesco
    Manno, Stefano
    Cicione, Antonio
    Damiano, Rocco
    Russo, Giorgio Ivan
    Morgia, Giuseppe
    ANTI-CANCER AGENTS IN MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2018, 18 (07) : 958 - 963
  • [34] Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer - in pursuit of a standardized protocol
    Sosnowski, Roman
    Kamecki, Hubert
    Daneshmand, Siamak
    Rudzinski, Jan K.
    Bjurlin, Marc A.
    Giganti, Francesco
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Klotz, Laurence
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 73 (02) : 123 - 126
  • [35] Super active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer | Opinion: Yes
    Reis, Leonardo O.
    Andrade, Danilo L.
    Bianco, Fernando J., Jr.
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2019, 45 (02): : 210 - 214
  • [36] Trends in active surveillance for very low-risk prostate cancer: do guidelines influence modern practice?
    Parikh, Rahul R.
    Kim, Sinae
    Stein, Mark N.
    Haffty, Bruce G.
    Kim, Isaac Y.
    Goyal, Sharad
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2017, 6 (10): : 2410 - 2418
  • [37] Is it appropriate to conduct conventional active surveillance for Asian men with low-risk prostate cancer?
    Xu, Ming
    Zhang, Li
    Liang, Chaozhao
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2016, 48 (08) : 1287 - 1289
  • [38] Is it appropriate to conduct conventional active surveillance for Asian men with low-risk prostate cancer?
    Ming Xu
    Li Zhang
    Chaozhao Liang
    International Urology and Nephrology, 2016, 48 : 1287 - 1289
  • [39] Future of Treatment for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: For All, for Some, or for None?
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 29 (15) : 1940 - 1943
  • [40] Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS)
    Xu, Jinping
    Bock, Cathryn H.
    Janisse, James
    Woo, Justin
    Cher, Michael L.
    Ginsburg, Kevin
    Yacoub, Rami
    Goodman, Michael
    CANCER, 2024, 130 (10) : 1797 - 1806