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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |