Alison M Pearce1, Fay Ryan2, Frances J Drummond3, Audrey Alforque Thomas4, Aileen Timmons3, Linda Sharp3. 1. National Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Cork, Ireland. a.pearce@ncri.ie. 2. University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK. 3. National Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Cork, Ireland. 4. National University Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer follow-up is traditionally provided by clinicians in a hospital setting. Growing numbers of prostate cancer survivors mean that this model of care may not be economically sustainable, and a number of alternative approaches have been suggested. The aim of this study was to develop an economic model to compare the costs of three alternative strategies for prostate cancer follow-up in Ireland-the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, the National Institute of Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and current practice. METHODS: A cost minimisation analysis was performed using a Markov model with three arms (EAU guidelines, NICE guidelines and current practice) comparing follow-up for men with prostate cancer treated with curative intent. The model took a health care payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon. RESULTS: Current practice was the least cost efficient arm of the model, the NICE guidelines were most cost efficient (74 % of current practice costs) and the EAU guidelines intermediate (92 % of current practice costs). For the 2562 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2009, the Irish health care system could have saved €760,000 over a 10-year period if the NICE guidelines were adopted. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study investigating costs of prostate cancer follow-up in the Irish setting. While economic models are designed as a simplification of complex real-world situations, these results suggest potential for significant savings within the Irish health care system associated with implementation of alternative models of prostate cancer follow-up care.
PURPOSE:Prostate cancer follow-up is traditionally provided by clinicians in a hospital setting. Growing numbers of prostate cancer survivors mean that this model of care may not be economically sustainable, and a number of alternative approaches have been suggested. The aim of this study was to develop an economic model to compare the costs of three alternative strategies for prostate cancer follow-up in Ireland-the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, the National Institute of Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and current practice. METHODS: A cost minimisation analysis was performed using a Markov model with three arms (EAU guidelines, NICE guidelines and current practice) comparing follow-up for men with prostate cancer treated with curative intent. The model took a health care payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon. RESULTS: Current practice was the least cost efficient arm of the model, the NICE guidelines were most cost efficient (74 % of current practice costs) and the EAU guidelines intermediate (92 % of current practice costs). For the 2562 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2009, the Irish health care system could have saved €760,000 over a 10-year period if the NICE guidelines were adopted. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study investigating costs of prostate cancer follow-up in the Irish setting. While economic models are designed as a simplification of complex real-world situations, these results suggest potential for significant savings within the Irish health care system associated with implementation of alternative models of prostate cancer follow-up care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer survivorship; Clinical practice guidelines; Cost minimisation; Economic model; Follow-up; Prostate cancer
Authors: Ruth A Lewis; Richard D Neal; Nefyn H Williams; Barbara France; Maggie Hendry; Daphne Russell; Dyfrig A Hughes; Ian Russell; Nicholas S A Stuart; David Weller; Clare Wilkinson Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Ruth Lewis; Richard D Neal; Nefyn H Williams; Barbara France; Clare Wilkinson; Maggie Hendry; Daphne Russell; Ian Russell; Dyfrig A Hughes; Nicholas S A Stuart; David Weller Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.187