OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of transurethral microwave thermotherapy relative to medical therapy (alpha-blocking agents) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective for a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old men with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms. We calculated the incremental cost effectiveness of thermotherapy relative to medical therapy and TURP during 5 years after treatment initiation. Event probabilities were obtained from published reports, a consensus panel, and the Targis System (Urologix) randomized clinical trial. Costs were estimated using the national Medicare reimbursement schedules. Costs are reported in 1999 U.S. dollars. Total thermotherapy procedure costs were estimated at $2629. Quality-of-life and utility estimates were obtained by interviewing 13 patients with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms. On the basis of their risk attitudes, patients were classified into risk-averse or non-risk-averse groups. The costs and health effects were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 non-risk-averse patients who were candidates for all three modalities, the 5-year costs were highest for patients undergoing TURP and lowest for those receiving medical therapy ($7334 and $6294, respectively). The thermotherapy group exhibited the highest 5-year utility value (53.52 quality-adjusted life-months). Compared with medical therapy, thermotherapy resulted in an additional 0.23 quality-adjusted life-months, with an incremental cost of $741. This yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained of $38,664 for thermotherapy compared with medical therapy. Thermotherapy had a higher utility (difference of 1.71 quality-adjusted life-months) and lower cost (difference of $299) compared with TURP and thus was dominant over TURP. The results were similar for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 risk-averse patients. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, thermotherapy appears to be a reasonable and cost-effective alternative to both medical and surgical treatment. However, the actual treatment decision should be based on multiple factors, only one of which is cost effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of transurethral microwave thermotherapy relative to medical therapy (alpha-blocking agents) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective for a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old men with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms. We calculated the incremental cost effectiveness of thermotherapy relative to medical therapy and TURP during 5 years after treatment initiation. Event probabilities were obtained from published reports, a consensus panel, and the Targis System (Urologix) randomized clinical trial. Costs were estimated using the national Medicare reimbursement schedules. Costs are reported in 1999 U.S. dollars. Total thermotherapy procedure costs were estimated at $2629. Quality-of-life and utility estimates were obtained by interviewing 13 patients with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms. On the basis of their risk attitudes, patients were classified into risk-averse or non-risk-averse groups. The costs and health effects were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 non-risk-averse patients who were candidates for all three modalities, the 5-year costs were highest for patients undergoing TURP and lowest for those receiving medical therapy ($7334 and $6294, respectively). The thermotherapy group exhibited the highest 5-year utility value (53.52 quality-adjusted life-months). Compared with medical therapy, thermotherapy resulted in an additional 0.23 quality-adjusted life-months, with an incremental cost of $741. This yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained of $38,664 for thermotherapy compared with medical therapy. Thermotherapy had a higher utility (difference of 1.71 quality-adjusted life-months) and lower cost (difference of $299) compared with TURP and thus was dominant over TURP. The results were similar for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 risk-averse patients. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, thermotherapy appears to be a reasonable and cost-effective alternative to both medical and surgical treatment. However, the actual treatment decision should be based on multiple factors, only one of which is cost effectiveness.