Cargando…

The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for localised prostate cancer in New Zealand. Active surveillance was introduced to prevent overtreatment and reduce costs while preserving the option of radical prostatectomy. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lao, Chunhuan, Edlin, Richard, Rouse, Paul, Brown, Charis, Holmes, Michael, Gilling, Peter, Lawrenson, Ross
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28789623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3522-z
_version_ 1783255954487246848
author Lao, Chunhuan
Edlin, Richard
Rouse, Paul
Brown, Charis
Holmes, Michael
Gilling, Peter
Lawrenson, Ross
author_facet Lao, Chunhuan
Edlin, Richard
Rouse, Paul
Brown, Charis
Holmes, Michael
Gilling, Peter
Lawrenson, Ross
author_sort Lao, Chunhuan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for localised prostate cancer in New Zealand. Active surveillance was introduced to prevent overtreatment and reduce costs while preserving the option of radical prostatectomy. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Markov models were constructed to estimate the life-time cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer patients aged 45–70 years, using national datasets in New Zealand and published studies including the SPCG-4 study. This study was from the perspective of the Ministry of Health in New Zealand. RESULTS: Radical prostatectomy is less costly than active surveillance in men aged 45–55 years with low risk localised prostate cancer, but more costly for men aged 60–70 years. Scenario analyses demonstrated significant uncertainty as to the most cost-effective option in all age groups because of the unavailability of good quality of life data for men under active surveillance. Uncertainties around the likelihood of having radical prostatectomy when managed with active surveillance also affect the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance against radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is less likely to be cost-effective compared to radical prostatectomy for younger men diagnosed with low risk localised prostate cancer. The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to radical prostatectomy is critically dependent on the ‘trigger’ for radical prostatectomy and the quality of life in men on active surveillance. Research on the latter would be beneficial. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3522-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5549326
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55493262017-08-11 The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer Lao, Chunhuan Edlin, Richard Rouse, Paul Brown, Charis Holmes, Michael Gilling, Peter Lawrenson, Ross BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for localised prostate cancer in New Zealand. Active surveillance was introduced to prevent overtreatment and reduce costs while preserving the option of radical prostatectomy. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Markov models were constructed to estimate the life-time cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer patients aged 45–70 years, using national datasets in New Zealand and published studies including the SPCG-4 study. This study was from the perspective of the Ministry of Health in New Zealand. RESULTS: Radical prostatectomy is less costly than active surveillance in men aged 45–55 years with low risk localised prostate cancer, but more costly for men aged 60–70 years. Scenario analyses demonstrated significant uncertainty as to the most cost-effective option in all age groups because of the unavailability of good quality of life data for men under active surveillance. Uncertainties around the likelihood of having radical prostatectomy when managed with active surveillance also affect the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance against radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is less likely to be cost-effective compared to radical prostatectomy for younger men diagnosed with low risk localised prostate cancer. The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to radical prostatectomy is critically dependent on the ‘trigger’ for radical prostatectomy and the quality of life in men on active surveillance. Research on the latter would be beneficial. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3522-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5549326/ /pubmed/28789623 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3522-z Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lao, Chunhuan
Edlin, Richard
Rouse, Paul
Brown, Charis
Holmes, Michael
Gilling, Peter
Lawrenson, Ross
The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer
title The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer
title_full The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer
title_fullStr The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer
title_short The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer
title_sort cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549326/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28789623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3522-z
work_keys_str_mv AT laochunhuan thecosteffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT edlinrichard thecosteffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT rousepaul thecosteffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT browncharis thecosteffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT holmesmichael thecosteffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT gillingpeter thecosteffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT lawrensonross thecosteffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT laochunhuan costeffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT edlinrichard costeffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT rousepaul costeffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT browncharis costeffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT holmesmichael costeffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT gillingpeter costeffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer
AT lawrensonross costeffectivenessofactivesurveillancecomparedtowatchfulwaitingandradicalprostatectomyforlowrisklocalisedprostatecancer