INTRODUCTION: The cost of surveillance strategies in patients after radical nephrectomy for localized primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been evaluated. We compared the costs of 2 different surveillance strategies, the new Canadian Urological Association (CUA) guidelines and the old strategy implemented in our institution. METHODS: Seventy-five patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary non-metastatic renal cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The direct cost of surveillance was determined and compared with the theoretical cost which would have been accrued using the CUA guidelines. RESULTS: Our mean follow-up was 31.1 (SD ± 20.4) months. The overall and disease-free survival endpoints were 87.7% and 85.2%, respectively. Total medical costs were higher for our old institutional surveillance strategy than the CUA guidelines ($181 861 vs. $135 054). For the complete follow-up of 75 patients, a cost-savings of $46 806 could have been achieved following the CUA guidelines (p = 0.002). Of recurrences, 7 of 8 were detected by routine screening, only 1 recurrence was identified by symptoms. The cost per recurrence detected in our old protocol was $9 812.92. The increased cost of our institution was due to more visits with basic testing, symptomatic investigation, and follow-up of imaging tests. The median percent cost attributable to these extra tests was 15% (range 0 to 59). CONCLUSION: Based on our results, we endorse the new CUA surveillance strategy in RCC follow-up as appropriate and cost effective in comparison with previous follow-up strategies used at our institution.
INTRODUCTION: The cost of surveillance strategies in patients after radical nephrectomy for localized primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been evaluated. We compared the costs of 2 different surveillance strategies, the new Canadian Urological Association (CUA) guidelines and the old strategy implemented in our institution. METHODS: Seventy-five patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for primary non-metastatic renal cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The direct cost of surveillance was determined and compared with the theoretical cost which would have been accrued using the CUA guidelines. RESULTS: Our mean follow-up was 31.1 (SD ± 20.4) months. The overall and disease-free survival endpoints were 87.7% and 85.2%, respectively. Total medical costs were higher for our old institutional surveillance strategy than the CUA guidelines ($181 861 vs. $135 054). For the complete follow-up of 75 patients, a cost-savings of $46 806 could have been achieved following the CUA guidelines (p = 0.002). Of recurrences, 7 of 8 were detected by routine screening, only 1 recurrence was identified by symptoms. The cost per recurrence detected in our old protocol was $9 812.92. The increased cost of our institution was due to more visits with basic testing, symptomatic investigation, and follow-up of imaging tests. The median percent cost attributable to these extra tests was 15% (range 0 to 59). CONCLUSION: Based on our results, we endorse the new CUA surveillance strategy in RCC follow-up as appropriate and cost effective in comparison with previous follow-up strategies used at our institution.
Authors: Wassim Kassouf; Robert Siemens; Christopher Morash; Louis Lacombe; Michael Jewett; Larry Goldenberg; Joseph Chin; Michael Chetner; Christopher G Wood; Simon Tanguay; Armen G Aprikian Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: John S Lam; Oleg Shvarts; John T Leppert; Allan J Pantuck; Robert A Figlin; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Michael P Chetner; Keith Rourke; Martin E Gleave; M Signaevsky; Bruce Palmer; James Kuan; Gerald B Brock; Simon Tanguay Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.450