T Reinhold1, C Dornquast2, C Börgermann3, L Weißbach4. 1. Institut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsökonomie, Charite - Universitätsmedizin, Luisenstr. 57, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. thomas.reinhold@charite.de. 2. Institut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsökonomie, Charite - Universitätsmedizin, Luisenstr. 57, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Urologie, onkologische Urologie und Kinderurologie, Krankenhaus Düren gem. GmbH, Düren, Deutschland. 4. Stiftung Männergesundheit, Berlin, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. For medical treatment of PCa, a number of therapies are available. The economic consequences associated with these individual treatment options in routine care in Germany are unclear so far. METHODS: The present analysis was based on the Germany-wide HAROW observational study, which was conducted from 2008-2013. During this study, all participating physicians and involved patients reported and documented individual health care resource consumption. These data were evaluated in monetary terms stratified by treatment regime (hormone therapy, HT; active surveillance, AS; radiotherapy, RT; radical prostatectomy, RP; watchful waiting, WW). RESULTS: Overall, the data of 2672 patients were available for analysis. Based on the observational study design, the included patient groups were heterogeneous in their baseline characteristics. The annual total costs from the societal perspective were the largest for patient undergoing RP (9254 €; 95 % CI 8353-10,154), mainly driven by the costs for the initial hospital stay for surgery. HT, AS, RT, and WW seem to be comparable in terms of direct costs, ranging from 805 € (95 % CI 154-1455) for WW up to 1115 € (95 % CI 826-1405) for RT. The highest indirect costs were observed for patients receiving RT (3928 €; 95 % CI 0-10,675), which can be justified by the frequent incapacity to work in this patient group. CONCLUSION: The treatment of prostate cancer can lead to significant economic follow-up costs which vary greatly depending on the type of treatment. The analysis indicates a need for the implementation of a long-term health economic study in the future, which will be more suitable to show treatment-specific differences in the temporal occurrence of costs.
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. For medical treatment of PCa, a number of therapies are available. The economic consequences associated with these individual treatment options in routine care in Germany are unclear so far. METHODS: The present analysis was based on the Germany-wide HAROW observational study, which was conducted from 2008-2013. During this study, all participating physicians and involved patients reported and documented individual health care resource consumption. These data were evaluated in monetary terms stratified by treatment regime (hormone therapy, HT; active surveillance, AS; radiotherapy, RT; radical prostatectomy, RP; watchful waiting, WW). RESULTS: Overall, the data of 2672 patients were available for analysis. Based on the observational study design, the included patient groups were heterogeneous in their baseline characteristics. The annual total costs from the societal perspective were the largest for patient undergoing RP (9254 €; 95 % CI 8353-10,154), mainly driven by the costs for the initial hospital stay for surgery. HT, AS, RT, and WW seem to be comparable in terms of direct costs, ranging from 805 € (95 % CI 154-1455) for WW up to 1115 € (95 % CI 826-1405) for RT. The highest indirect costs were observed for patients receiving RT (3928 €; 95 % CI 0-10,675), which can be justified by the frequent incapacity to work in this patient group. CONCLUSION: The treatment of prostate cancer can lead to significant economic follow-up costs which vary greatly depending on the type of treatment. The analysis indicates a need for the implementation of a long-term health economic study in the future, which will be more suitable to show treatment-specific differences in the temporal occurrence of costs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-analysis; Costs, direct; Health services research; Indirect costs; Prostate cancer
Authors: Aaron A Laviana; Annette M Ilg; Darlene Veruttipong; Hung-Jui Tan; Michael A Burke; Douglas R Niedzwiecki; Patrick A Kupelian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Chandan R Kundavaram; Mitchell Kamrava; Alan L Kaplan; Andrew K Moriarity; William Hsu; Daniel J A Margolis; Jim C Hu; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ahmed Eldefrawy; Devendar Katkoori; Matthew Abramowitz; Mark S Soloway; Murugesan Manoharan Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Raveendhara R Bannuru; Tomas Dvorak; Ndidiamaka Obadan; Winifred W Yu; Kamal Patel; Mei Chung; Stanley Ip Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jan Herden; Lena Ansmann; Nicole Ernstmann; Dietrich Schnell; Lotharh Weißbac Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 5.594
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: Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robin Wm Vernooij; Michelle Lancee; Anne Cleves; Philipp Dahm; Chris H Bangma; Katja Kh Aben Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-04