Literature DB >> 26666409

Prostatectomy at high-volume centers improves outcomes and lowers the costs of care for prostate cancer.

A Barzi1, E A Klein2, T B Dorff1, D I Quinn1, S Sadeghi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High-volume surgeons with ⩾250 radical prostatectomies provide superior oncological outcomes as evidenced by a lower rate of PSA recurrence (PSAR). The financial benefits of performing prostatectomies at high-volume centers (HVC) are unexplored.
METHODS: A base case--referent scenario--where the share of prostatectomies at high- and low-volume centers were evenly divided at 50% was defined. Additional scenarios with increasing shares of prostatectomies at HVC with 10% increments were also modeled. Using a lower probability of PSAR as the only advantage of more experienced surgeons, the savings that would result from fewer recurrences, avoidance of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and management of fewer men with metastatic cancer were calculated.
RESULTS: The savings associated with performing 80% of radical prostatectomy at HVC were $177, $357 and $559 per prostatectomy at 5, 10 and 20 years, respectively. These savings would offset referral costs of up to $1833 per prostatectomy referral at no additional total societal costs. Given the longer average biochemical failure-free survival with prostatectomies at HVC, referral costs of more than $1833 may be cost effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Under the conservative assumption of accounting for lower rates of PSAR as the only benefit of surgery in an HVC, performing prostatectomies at an HVC was associated with savings that may offset part of the initial referral costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26666409      PMCID: PMC8942441          DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2015.56

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  25 in total

Review 1.  Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard.

Authors:  R A Hirth; M E Chernew; E Miller; A M Fendrick; W G Weissert
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies.

Authors:  Milton C Weinstein; Bernie O'Brien; John Hornberger; Joseph Jackson; Magnus Johannesson; Chris McCabe; Bryan R Luce
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity.

Authors:  Shabbir M H Alibhai; Marc Leach; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn; Neil Fleshner; Eric Holowaty; Gary Naglie
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center.

Authors:  Andrew Vickers; Caroline Savage; Fernando Bianco; John Mulhall; Jaspreet Sandhu; Bertrand Guillonneau; Angel Cronin; Peter Scardino
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Editorial comment.

Authors:  Stuart Howards
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Contrary to cost-shift theory, lower Medicare hospital payment rates for inpatient care lead to lower private payment rates.

Authors:  Chapin White
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Trends in radical prostatectomy: centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care.

Authors:  Karyn B Stitzenberg; Yu-Ning Wong; Matthew E Nielsen; Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group.

Authors:  R S Lance; P A Freidrichs; C Kane; C R Powell; E Pulos; J W Moul; D G McLeod; R L Cornum
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Salvage radiation in men after prostate-specific antigen failure and the risk of death.

Authors:  Shane E Cotter; Ming Hui Chen; Judd W Moul; W Robert Lee; Bridget F Koontz; Mitchell S Anscher; Cary N Robertson; Philip J Walther; Thomas J Polascik; Anthony V D'Amico
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Variation in the Cost of Radiation Therapy Among Medicare Patients With Cancer.

Authors:  Anthony J Paravati; Isabel J Boero; Daniel P Triplett; Lindsay Hwang; Rayna K Matsuno; Beibei Xu; Loren K Mell; James D Murphy
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 3.840

View more
  3 in total

1.  Influence of the facility caseload on the subsequent survival of men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Afsaneh Barzi; Primo N Lara; Denice Tsao-Wei; Dongyun Yang; Inderbir S Gill; Siamak Daneshmand; Eric A Klein; Jacek K Pinski; David F Penson; David I Quinn; Sarmad Sadeghi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Access to high-volume surgeons and the opportunity cost of performing radical prostatectomy by low-volume providers.

Authors:  Afsaneh Barzi; Eric A Klein; Siamak Daneshmand; Inderbir Gill; David I Quinn; Sarmad Sadeghi
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.498

3.  Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy versus IMRT with Long-Term Hormone Therapy for Relatively Young Patients with High- to Very High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hung-Jen Shih; Shyh-Chyi Chang; Chia-Hao Hsu; Yi-Chu Lin; Chu-Hsuan Hung; Szu-Yuan Wu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 6.639

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.