Aaron A Laviana1, Annette M Ilg1, Darlene Veruttipong2, Hung-Jui Tan1,3, Michael A Burke4, Douglas R Niedzwiecki5, Patrick A Kupelian2, Chris R King2, Michael L Steinberg2, Chandan R Kundavaram1, Mitchell Kamrava2, Alan L Kaplan1, Andrew K Moriarity6, William Hsu6, Daniel J A Margolis6, Jim C Hu7, Christopher S Saigal1. 1. Institute of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Performance Excellence, University of California Los Angeles Health System, Los Angeles, California. 5. Operative Services, University of California Los Angeles Health System, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the costs of delivering care for men with prostate cancer remain poorly described, this article reports the results of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for competing treatments of low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Process maps were developed for each phase of care from the initial urologic visit through 12 years of follow-up for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), cryotherapy, high-dose rate (HDR) and low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and active surveillance (AS). The last modality incorporated both traditional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy and multiparametric-MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. The costs of materials, equipment, personnel, and space were calculated per unit of time and based on the relative proportion of capacity used. TDABC for each treatment was defined as the sum of its resources. RESULTS: Substantial cost variation was observed at 5 years, with costs ranging from $7,298 for AS to $23,565 for IMRT, and they remained consistent through 12 years of follow-up. LDR brachytherapy ($8,978) was notably cheaper than HDR brachytherapy ($11,448), and SBRT ($11,665) was notably cheaper than IMRT, with the cost savings attributable to shorter procedure times and fewer visits required for treatment. Both equipment costs and an inpatient stay ($2,306) contributed to the high cost of RALP ($16,946). Cryotherapy ($11,215) was more costly than LDR brachytherapy, largely because of increased single-use equipment costs ($6,292 vs $1,921). AS reached cost equivalence with LDR brachytherapy after 7 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TDABC is feasible for analyzing cancer services and provides insights into cost-reduction tactics in an era focused on emphasizing value. By detailing all steps from diagnosis and treatment through 12 years of follow-up for low-risk prostate cancer, this study has demonstrated significant cost variation between competing treatments.
BACKGROUND: Given the costs of delivering care for men with prostate cancer remain poorly described, this article reports the results of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for competing treatments of low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Process maps were developed for each phase of care from the initial urologic visit through 12 years of follow-up for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), cryotherapy, high-dose rate (HDR) and low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and active surveillance (AS). The last modality incorporated both traditional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy and multiparametric-MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. The costs of materials, equipment, personnel, and space were calculated per unit of time and based on the relative proportion of capacity used. TDABC for each treatment was defined as the sum of its resources. RESULTS: Substantial cost variation was observed at 5 years, with costs ranging from $7,298 for AS to $23,565 for IMRT, and they remained consistent through 12 years of follow-up. LDR brachytherapy ($8,978) was notably cheaper than HDR brachytherapy ($11,448), and SBRT ($11,665) was notably cheaper than IMRT, with the cost savings attributable to shorter procedure times and fewer visits required for treatment. Both equipment costs and an inpatient stay ($2,306) contributed to the high cost of RALP ($16,946). Cryotherapy ($11,215) was more costly than LDR brachytherapy, largely because of increased single-use equipment costs ($6,292 vs $1,921). AS reached cost equivalence with LDR brachytherapy after 7 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TDABC is feasible for analyzing cancer services and provides insights into cost-reduction tactics in an era focused on emphasizing value. By detailing all steps from diagnosis and treatment through 12 years of follow-up for low-risk prostate cancer, this study has demonstrated significant cost variation between competing treatments.
Authors: Scott M Glaser; Ronny Kalash; Dante R Bongiorni; Mark S Roberts; Goundappa K Balasubramani; Bruce L Jacobs; Sushil Beriwal; Dwight E Heron; Joel S Greenberger Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Dylan Isaacson; Tessnim Ahmad; Ian Metzler; David T Tzou; Kazumi Taguchi; Manint Usawachintachit; Samuel Zetumer; Benjamin Sherer; Marshall Stoller; Thomas Chi Journal: J Endourol Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Florian Rudolf Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Sam B Bhayani; Paul L Nguyen; David Penson; Jim Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Joshua A Halpern; Art Sedrakyan; Wei-Chun Hsu; Jialin Mao; Timothy J Daskivich; Paul L Nguyen; Encouse B Golden; Josephine Kang; Jim C Hu Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 6.860