Zachary Klaassen1, Kathy Li1, Wassim Kassouf2, Peter C Black3, Alice Dragomir2, Girish S Kulkarni1,4. 1. Division of Urology, Departments of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC. 3. Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 4. Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have suggested cost-savings using blue light cystoscopy (BLC) with hexaminolevulinate (HAL) compared to white light cystoscopy (WLC) during transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), secondary to improvements in recurrence and progression rates; however, these studies have used 'best case scenario' recurrence rate probabilities, thus decreasing generalizability of the findings. The objective of this study was to perform a contemporary cost-effectiveness assessment of BLC compared to WLC at the time of TURBT. METHODS: A decision and cost-effectiveness model with a five-year time horizon following initial TURBT was used. The model was created from the healthcare payer perspective. Comprehensive literature review was performed to obtain contemporary recurrence and progression rates. These values were meta-analyzed for inclusion into the model. Cost variables included in the model were from three large Canadian bladder cancer centres. Model outputs were number of recurrences prevented, bed days saved, and overall costs. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: The five-year amortized cost of using BLC with HAL on all incident NMIBC compared to WLC assistance was $4 832,908 for Ontario (n=4696; $1372/patient); $1 168 968 for British Columbia (n=1204; $1295/patient); and $2 484, 872 (n=2680; $1236/patient) for Quebec. Use of BLC with HAL would result in 87 338 fewer recurrences annually. On sensitivity/scenario analyses for Ontario data, if BLC with HAL equipment were provided to the province at no cost, five-year costs would be $4 158 814 and $1181 cost per patient. If BLC with HAL were only used for cystoscopically appearing aggressive tumours, the five-year amortized cost would be $3 874 098, with a cost per patient of $1222. If there was a 20% or 50% improvement in progression rates with BLC plus HAL, the five-year amortized cost would be $2 660 529 and -$598 039 (cost-saving), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TURBT using BLC with HAL for patients with NMIBC is associated with a five-year cost of approximately $1-5 million for jurisdictions of 4-13 million people. Although this translates to a cost of $1200-1400 per patient for their initial TURBT, BLC with HAL improves patients care, reduces recurrences, and decreases the need for hospital beds after TURBT. If this diagnostic procedure eventually improves progression rates, there would be considerably improved cost-effectiveness.
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have suggested cost-savings using blue light cystoscopy (BLC) with hexaminolevulinate (HAL) compared to white light cystoscopy (WLC) during transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), secondary to improvements in recurrence and progression rates; however, these studies have used 'best case scenario' recurrence rate probabilities, thus decreasing generalizability of the findings. The objective of this study was to perform a contemporary cost-effectiveness assessment of BLC compared to WLC at the time of TURBT. METHODS: A decision and cost-effectiveness model with a five-year time horizon following initial TURBT was used. The model was created from the healthcare payer perspective. Comprehensive literature review was performed to obtain contemporary recurrence and progression rates. These values were meta-analyzed for inclusion into the model. Cost variables included in the model were from three large Canadian bladder cancer centres. Model outputs were number of recurrences prevented, bed days saved, and overall costs. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to assess model robustness. RESULTS: The five-year amortized cost of using BLC with HAL on all incident NMIBC compared to WLC assistance was $4 832,908 for Ontario (n=4696; $1372/patient); $1 168 968 for British Columbia (n=1204; $1295/patient); and $2 484, 872 (n=2680; $1236/patient) for Quebec. Use of BLC with HAL would result in 87 338 fewer recurrences annually. On sensitivity/scenario analyses for Ontario data, if BLC with HAL equipment were provided to the province at no cost, five-year costs would be $4 158 814 and $1181 cost per patient. If BLC with HAL were only used for cystoscopically appearing aggressive tumours, the five-year amortized cost would be $3 874 098, with a cost per patient of $1222. If there was a 20% or 50% improvement in progression rates with BLC plus HAL, the five-year amortized cost would be $2 660 529 and -$598 039 (cost-saving), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TURBT using BLC with HAL for patients with NMIBC is associated with a five-year cost of approximately $1-5 million for jurisdictions of 4-13 million people. Although this translates to a cost of $1200-1400 per patient for their initial TURBT, BLC with HAL improves patients care, reduces recurrences, and decreases the need for hospital beds after TURBT. If this diagnostic procedure eventually improves progression rates, there would be considerably improved cost-effectiveness.
Authors: Wassim Kassouf; Samer L Traboulsi; Girish S Kulkarni; Rodney H Breau; Alexandre Zlotta; Andrew Fairey; Alan So; Louis Lacombe; Ricardo Rendon; Armen G Aprikian; D Robert Siemens; Jonathan I Izawa; Peter Black Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Michael Rink; Marko Babjuk; James W F Catto; Patrice Jichlinski; Shahrokh F Shariat; Arnulf Stenzl; Herbert Stepp; Dirk Zaak; J Alfred Witjes Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Arnulf Stenzl; Maximilian Burger; Yves Fradet; Lance A Mynderse; Mark S Soloway; J Alfred Witjes; Martin Kriegmair; Alexander Karl; Yu Shen; H Barton Grossman Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Richard J Sylvester; Willem Oosterlinck; Sten Holmang; Matthew R Sydes; Alison Birtle; Sigurdur Gudjonsson; Cosimo De Nunzio; Kikuo Okamura; Eero Kaasinen; Eduardo Solsona; Bedeir Ali-El-Dein; Can Ali Tatar; Brant A Inman; James N'Dow; Jorg R Oddens; Marek Babjuk Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Diana Magee; Douglas Cheung; Amanda Hird; Srikala S Sridhar; Charles Catton; Peter Chung; Alejandro Berlin; Padraig Warde; Alexandre Zlotta; Neil Fleshner; Girish S Kulkarni Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052