Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial

Vidit Sharma, Kevin M. Wymer, Bijan J. Borah, Daniel A. Barocas, R. Houston Thompson, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Stephen A. Boorjian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)964-972
Number of pages9
JournalThe Journal of urology
Volume202
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2019

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Prostatic Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Random Allocation
Therapeutics
Medicare
Quality of Life
Clinical Trials
Neoplasm Metastasis
Survival

Keywords

  • cost-benefit analysis
  • prostatectomy
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • radiotherapy
  • watchful waiting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer : An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial. / Sharma, Vidit; Wymer, Kevin M.; Borah, Bijan J.; Barocas, Daniel A.; Thompson, R. Houston; Karnes, R. Jeffrey; Boorjian, Stephen A.

In: The Journal of urology, Vol. 202, No. 5, 01.11.2019, p. 964-972.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7fd7d2d000054a50ba711d0a2f2815b9,
title = "Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "cost-benefit analysis, prostatectomy, prostatic neoplasms, radiotherapy, watchful waiting",
author = "Vidit Sharma and Wymer, {Kevin M.} and Borah, {Bijan J.} and Barocas, {Daniel A.} and Thompson, {R. Houston} and Karnes, {R. Jeffrey} and Boorjian, {Stephen A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/JU.0000000000000345",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "202",
pages = "964--972",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

T2 - An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial

AU - Sharma, Vidit

AU - Wymer, Kevin M.

AU - Borah, Bijan J.

AU - Barocas, Daniel A.

AU - Thompson, R. Houston

AU - Karnes, R. Jeffrey

AU - Boorjian, Stephen A.

PY - 2019/11/1

Y1 - 2019/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - cost-benefit analysis

KW - prostatectomy

KW - prostatic neoplasms

KW - radiotherapy

KW - watchful waiting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075805349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075805349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/JU.0000000000000345

DO - 10.1097/JU.0000000000000345

M3 - Article

C2 - 31112105

AN - SCOPUS:85075805349

VL - 202

SP - 964

EP - 972

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 5

ER -