PURPOSE: Despite increasing emphasis on value based care, to our knowledge the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer management options has not been compared using prospective clinical trial data. The ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial demonstrated no difference in survival in patients randomized to active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We compared cost-effectiveness among the arms of ProtecT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy based on ProtecT outcomes, specifically 6-year quality of life data and 10-year oncologic data. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement while utility values were assigned using the literature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six years after randomization the mean costs per patient were $12,143 for active surveillance, $17,781 for radical prostatectomy and $29,238 for external beam radiotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to active surveillance was $127,752/QALY for radical prostatectomy and $381,894/QALY for external beam radiotherapy. Ten years after randomization radical prostatectomy ($5,627/QALY) and external beam radiotherapy ($78,291/QALY) were more cost-effective than active surveillance. The model was sensitive to the metastasis rate on active surveillance with a threshold of 2.4% at 10 years, below which active surveillance was more cost-effective than radical prostatectomy. On multivariable sensitivity analysis at 10 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY the most cost-effective strategy was radical prostatectomy in 45% of model microsimulations, external beam radiotherapy in 30% and active surveillance in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Although active surveillance represents a cost-effective strategy to manage localized prostate cancer during the initial several years after diagnosis, the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment emerges with extended followup.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Despite increasing emphasis on value based care, to our knowledge the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer management options has not been compared using prospective clinical trial data. The ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial demonstrated no difference in survival in patients randomized to active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We compared cost-effectiveness among the arms of ProtecT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy based on ProtecT outcomes, specifically 6-year quality of life data and 10-year oncologic data. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement while utility values were assigned using the literature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six years after randomization the mean costs per patient were $12,143 for active surveillance, $17,781 for radical prostatectomy and $29,238 for external beam radiotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to active surveillance was $127,752/QALY for radical prostatectomy and $381,894/QALY for external beam radiotherapy. Ten years after randomization radical prostatectomy ($5,627/QALY) and external beam radiotherapy ($78,291/QALY) were more cost-effective than active surveillance. The model was sensitive to the metastasis rate on active surveillance with a threshold of 2.4% at 10 years, below which active surveillance was more cost-effective than radical prostatectomy. On multivariable sensitivity analysis at 10 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY the most cost-effective strategy was radical prostatectomy in 45% of model microsimulations, external beam radiotherapy in 30% and active surveillance in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Although active surveillance represents a cost-effective strategy to manage localized prostate cancer during the initial several years after diagnosis, the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment emerges with extended followup.
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie Harmon; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Dmitry Enikeev; Mark Taratkin; Alexander Amosov; Juan Gomez Rivas; Alexei Podoinitsin; Natalya Potoldykova; Marina Karageziyan; Petr Glybochko; Eric Barret Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2020-04-08
Authors: Nathaniel Hendrix; Roman Gulati; Boshen Jiao; A Karim Kader; Stephen T Ryan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Christopher J Magnani; Nicolas Bievre; Laurence C Baker; James D Brooks; Douglas W Blayney; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2020-12-10
Authors: Michael D Brundage; Norah L Crossnohere; Jennifer O'Donnell; Samantha Cruz Rivera; Roger Wilson; Albert W Wu; David Moher; Derek Kyte; Bryce B Reeve; Alexandra Gilbert; Ronald C Chen; Melanie J Calvert; Claire Snyder Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Boshen Jiao; Roman Gulati; Nathaniel Hendrix; John L Gore; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Todd M Morgan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.101
Authors: S Sanghera; S Mohiuddin; J Coast; K Garfield; S Noble; C Metcalfe; J A Lane; E L Turner; D Neal; F C Hamdy; R M Martin; J L Donovan Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Graham R Hale; Mohammed Shahait; David I Lee; Daniel J Lee; Ryan W Dobbs Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 2.711