BACKGROUND: The costs associated with a contemporary active surveillance strategy compared with immediate treatment for prostate cancer are not well characterized. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the health care costs of an active surveillance paradigm for prostate cancer. METHODS: A theoretical cohort of 120,000 men selecting active surveillance for prostate cancer was created. The number of men remaining on active surveillance and those exiting to each of 5 treatments over 5 years were simulated in a Markov model. Estimated total costs after 5 years of active surveillance with subsequent delayed treatment were compared with immediate treatment. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effect of various surveillance strategies and attrition rates. Additional analyses to include 10 years of follow-up were performed. RESULTS: The average simulated cost of treatment for 120,000 men initiating active surveillance with 5 years of follow-up and subsequent delayed treatment resulted in per patient cost savings of $16,042 (95% confidence interval [CI], $16,039-$16,046) relative to initial curative treatment. This represents a $1.9 billion dollar savings to the cohort. The strict costs of active surveillance exceeded those of brachytherapy in the ninth year of follow-up. A yearly biopsy within the active surveillance cohort increased costs by 22%, compared with every other year biopsy. At 10 years of follow-up, active surveillance still resulted in a cost benefit; however, the savings were reduced by 38% to $9944 (95% CI, $9941-$9948) per patient relative to initial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that active surveillance represents a considerable cost savings over immediate treatment for prostate cancer in a theoretical cohort after 5 and 10 years of follow-up.
BACKGROUND: The costs associated with a contemporary active surveillance strategy compared with immediate treatment for prostate cancer are not well characterized. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the health care costs of an active surveillance paradigm for prostate cancer. METHODS: A theoretical cohort of 120,000 men selecting active surveillance for prostate cancer was created. The number of men remaining on active surveillance and those exiting to each of 5 treatments over 5 years were simulated in a Markov model. Estimated total costs after 5 years of active surveillance with subsequent delayed treatment were compared with immediate treatment. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effect of various surveillance strategies and attrition rates. Additional analyses to include 10 years of follow-up were performed. RESULTS: The average simulated cost of treatment for 120,000 men initiating active surveillance with 5 years of follow-up and subsequent delayed treatment resulted in per patient cost savings of $16,042 (95% confidence interval [CI], $16,039-$16,046) relative to initial curative treatment. This represents a $1.9 billion dollar savings to the cohort. The strict costs of active surveillance exceeded those of brachytherapy in the ninth year of follow-up. A yearly biopsy within the active surveillance cohort increased costs by 22%, compared with every other year biopsy. At 10 years of follow-up, active surveillance still resulted in a cost benefit; however, the savings were reduced by 38% to $9944 (95% CI, $9941-$9948) per patient relative to initial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that active surveillance represents a considerable cost savings over immediate treatment for prostate cancer in a theoretical cohort after 5 and 10 years of follow-up.
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Susan T Stewart; Vibha Bhatnagar; Christopher J Sweeney; James E Stahl; Pamela M McMahon Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pär Stattin; Erik Holmberg; Jan-Erik Johansson; Lars Holmberg; Jan Adolfsson; Jonas Hugosson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shi-Yi Wang; Rong Wang; James B Yu; Xiaomei Ma; Xiao Xu; Simon P Kim; Pamela R Soulos; Avantika Saraf; Cary P Gross Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Reka Pataky; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Peter Black; Kim N Chi; Andrew J Coldman; Tom Pickles; Scott Tyldesley; Stuart Peacock Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Javier Romero-Otero; Borja García-Gómez; José M Duarte-Ojeda; Alfredo Rodríguez-Antolín; Antoni Vilaseca; Sigrid V Carlsson; Karim A Touijer Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Karim Chamie; Geoffrey A Sonn; David S Finley; Nelly Tan; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter Journal: Urology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Pablo A Lee; Pamela M McMahon Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jeffrey M Martin; Elizabeth A Handorf; Alexander Kutikov; Robert G Uzzo; Justin E Bekelman; Eric M Horwitz; Marc C Smaldone Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860