The cost-utility of open prostatectomy compared with active surveillance in early localised prostate cancer

BMC Health Services Research

Wolf Rogowski¹  Björn Stollenwerk³  Raphaela Waidelich²  Florian Koerber³ 

[1] Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Munich, Ziemssenstraße 1, 80336 Munich, Germany;Department of Urology, University of Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 Munich, Germany;Institute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Ingolstädter Landstrasse 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany

关键词: Early evaluation;    Decision analysis;    Active surveillance;    Prostate cancer;    Cost-effectiveness;    Cost-utility analysis;    Economic evaluation;   

Others  :  1132748
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-163

 received in 2013-10-05, accepted in 2014-03-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is an on-going debate about whether to perform surgery on early stage localised prostate cancer and risk the common long term side effects such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Alternatively these patients could be closely monitored and treated only in case of disease progression (active surveillance). The aim of this paper is to develop a decision-analytic model comparing the cost-utility of active surveillance (AS) and radical prostatectomy (PE) for a cohort of 65 year old men with newly diagnosed low risk prostate cancer.

Methods

A Markov model comparing PE and AS over a lifetime horizon was programmed in TreeAge from a German societal perspective. Comparative disease specific mortality was obtained from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group trial. Direct costs were identified via national treatment guidelines and expert interviews covering in-patient, out-patient, medication, aids and remedies as well as out of pocket payments. Utility values were used as factor weights for age specific quality of life values of the German population. Uncertainty was assessed deterministically and probabilistically.

Results

With quality adjustment, AS was the dominant strategy compared with initial treatment. In the base case, it was associated with an additional 0.04 quality adjusted life years (7.60 QALYs vs. 7.56 QALYs) and a cost reduction of €6,883 per patient (2011 prices). Considering only life-years gained, PE was more effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €96,420/life year gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of developing metastases under AS and utility weights under AS are a major sources of uncertainty. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that AS was more likely to be cost-effective even under very high willingness to pay thresholds.

Conclusion

AS is likely to be a cost-saving treatment strategy for some patients with early stage localised prostate cancer. However, cost-effectiveness is dependent on patients’ valuation of health states. Better predictability of tumour progression and modified reimbursement practice would support widespread use of AS in the context of the German health care system. More research is necessary in order to reliably quantify the health benefits compared with initial treatment and account for patient preferences.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Koerber et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011, 61(2):69-90.
• [2]Statistisches Bundesamt: Statistisches Jahrbuch 2011 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Statistical Yearbook 2011 for the Federal Republic of Germany]. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office; 2011.
• [3]Moul JW, Wu H, Sun L, McLeod DG, Amling C, Lance R, Kusuda L, Donahue T, Foley J, Chung A, Sexton W, Soderdahl D, Rich NM: Epidemiology of radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in the era of prostate-specific antigen: an overview of the Department of Defense Center for Prostate Disease Research national database. Surgery 2002, 132(2):213-219.
• [4]Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA: Campbell-Walsh Urology. 10th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011.
• [5]Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/043-022OLl_S3_Prostatakarzinom_2011.pdf webcite
• [6]Schmedders M, Janatzek S, Zimmer B: Benefit assessment by the Federal Joint Committee: assessment of treatment strategies for low risk prostate cancer. Urologe A 2011, 50(8):938-943.
• [7]Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Garmo H, Stark JR, Busch C, Nordling S, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S, Spångberg A, Palmgren J, Steineck G, Adami HO, Johansson JE, SPCG-4 Investigators: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011, 364(18):1708-1717.
• [8]Gronberg H: Prostate cancer epidemiology. Lancet 2003, 361(9360):859-864.
• [9]Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andrén O, Andersson S-O, Holmberg L, Adami H-O, Johansson J-E: Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur Urol 2013, 63(3):428-435.
• [10]Klotz L: Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2006, 24(1):46-50.
• [11]Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, European Association of Urology: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer: part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011, 59(1):61-71.
• [12]Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, Karnes RJ, Moul JW, Schaeffer EM, Stief C, Zorn KC: A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol 2012, 61(4):664-675.
• [13]Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L, Johansson JE, Nyberg T, Ruutu M, Bill-Axelson A: Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2011, 12(9):891-899.
• [14]Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Klotz LH, Parker C, Soloway MS: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012, 62(6):976-983.
• [15]Parker C: Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol 2004, 5(2):101-106.
• [16]Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Balk EM, Yu WW, Mathew P, Lau J, Ip S: Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancera systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012, 156(8):582-590.
• [17]Xia J, Trock BJ, Cooperberg MR, Gulati R, Zeliadt SB, Gore JL, Lin DW, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Etzioni R: Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 2012, 18(19):5471-5478.
• [18]Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 2013, 16(2):231-250.
• [19]Methods for Assessment of the Relation of Benefits to Costs in the German Statutory Health Care System https://www.iqwig.de/en/methods/methods_papers/health_economic_evaluation.3022.html webcite
• [20]Hummel S, Simpson EL, Hemingway P, Stevenson MD, Rees A: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2010, 14(47):1-108. iii-iv
• [21]Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Rosenberg DL, Manoharan M: Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J Urol 2012, 187(5):1594-1599.
• [22]Dall’Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, Davies BJ, Albertsen PC, Klotz LH, Warlick CA, Holmberg L, Bailey DE Jr, Wallace ME, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR: Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 2008, 112(8):1650-1659.
• [23]Constantinides CA, Tyritzis SI, Skolarikos A, Liatsikos E, Zervas A, Deliveliotis C: Short- and long-term complications of open radical prostatectomy according to the Clavien classification system. BJU Int 2009, 103(3):336-340.
• [24]Veldeman L, Madani I, Hulstaert F, De Meerleer G, Mareel M, De Neve W: Evidence behind use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies. Lancet Oncol 2008, 9(4):367-375.
• [25]Wood S: Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2006.
• [26]Ara R, Brazier JE: Using health state utility values from the general population to approximate baselines in decision analytic models when condition-specific data are not available. Value Health 2011, 14(4):539-545.
• [27]Mielck A, Vogelmann M, Schweikert B, Leidl R: Health status of adults in germany: results from a representative survey using the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D). Gesundheitswesen 2010, 72(8-9):476-486.
• [28]Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SM, Krahn MD: A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2007, 27(3):288-298.
• [29]Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, Barry MJ, Kantoff PW, Stewart ST, Bhatnagar V, Sweeney CJ, Stahl JE, McMahon PM: Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA 2010, 304(21):2373-2380.
• [30]Krahn MD, Bremner KE, Alibhai SM, Ni A, Tomlinson G, Laporte A, Naglie G: A reference set of health utilities for long-term survivors of prostate cancer: population-based data from Ontario, Canada. Qual Life Res 2013, 22(10):2951-2962.
• [31]Stewart ST, Lenert L, Bhatnagar V, Kaplan RM: Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care 2005, 43(4):347-355.
• [32]Sommers BD, Beard CJ, D’Amico AV, Dahl D, Kaplan I, Richie JP, Zeckhauser RJ: Decision analysis using individual patient preferences to determine optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2007, 110(10):2210-2217.
• [33]Liu D, Lehmann HP, Frick KD, Carter HB: Active surveillance versus surgery for low risk prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis. J Urol 2012, 187(4):1241-1246.
• [34]Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung http://www.kbv.de/ webcite
• [35]Intitut für Entgeltsysteme im Krankenhaus http://www.g-drg.de/cms/ webcite
• [36]Research Institute of the AOK http://wido.de/arzneimittel.html webcite
• [37]Pinkhasov GI, Lin YK, Palmerola R, Smith P, Mahon F, Kaag MG, Dagen JE, Harpster LE, Reese CT, Raman JD: Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits - experience from 1000 consecutive cases. BJU Int 2012, 110(3):369-374.
• [38]Wilson EC, McKeen ES, Scuffham PA, Brown MC, Wylie K, Hackett G: The cost to the United Kingdom National Health Service of managing erectile dysfunction: the impact of sildenafil and prescribing restrictions. Pharmacoecon 2002, 20(13):879-889.
• [39]Groot MT, Boeken Kruger CG, Pelger RC, Uyl-de Groot CA: Costs of prostate cancer, metastatic to the bone, in the Netherlands. Eur Urol 2003, 43(3):226-232.
• [40]Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, Gingrich JR, Wei JT, Gilhooly P, Grob BM, Nsouli I, Iyer P, Cartagena R, Snider G, Roehrborn C, Sharifi R, Blank W, Pandya P, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T, Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group: Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012, 367(3):203-213.
• [41]Bock CH, Schwartz AG, Ruterbusch JJ, Levin AM, Neslund-Dudas C, Land SJ, Wenzlaff AS, Reich D, McKeigue P, Chen W, Heath EI, Powell IJ, Kittles RA, Rybicki BA: Results from a prostate cancer admixture mapping study in African-American men. Hum Genet 2009, 126(5):637-642.
• [42]Miller DC, Zheng SL, Dunn RL, Sarma AV, Montie JE, Lange EM, Meyers DA, Xu J, Cooney KA: Germ-line mutations of the macrophage scavenger receptor 1 gene: association with prostate cancer risk in African-American men. Cancer Res 2003, 63(13):3486-3489.
• [43]Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, Salo JO, Folmerz P, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Spangberg A, Busch C, Nordling S, Palmgren J, Adami HO, Johansson JE, Norlén BJ, Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group Study Number 4: A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002, 347(11):781-789.
• [44]Alibhai SM, Naglie G, Nam R, Trachtenberg J, Krahn MD: Do older men benefit from curative therapy of localized prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol 2003, 21(17):3318-3327.
• [45]Active Surveillance and Radical Prostatectomy Final Appraisal http://www.icer-review.org/publications-and-resources/reports/ webcite
• [46]Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. 1st edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 2006.
• [47]Andersson SO, Rashidkhani B, Karlberg L, Wolk A, Johansson JE: Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in men aged 45-79 years: a population-based study of 40 000 Swedish men. BJU Int 2004, 94(3):327-331.
• [48]Horwitz EM, Thames HD, Kuban DA, Levy LB, Kupelian PA, Martinez AA, Michalski JM, Pisansky TM, Sandler HM, Shipley WU, Zelefsky MJ, Hanks GE, Zietman AL: Definitions of biochemical failure that best predict clinical failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation alone: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. The J of Urol 2005, 173(3):797-802.
• [49]Rogowski WH, Landauer M, John J: Decision-analytical modelling of costs per QALY in the context of the German Social Law. Gesundheitswesen 2009, 71(11):739-750.
• [50]Grosse SD: Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008, 8(2):165-178.
• [51]Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W, Jost F, Klusen N, Kubin M, Leidl R, Mittendorf T, Rebscher H, Schoeffski O, Vauth C, Volmer T, Wahler S, Wasem J, Weber C, Hanover Consensus Group: German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover consensus. Value Health 2008, 11(4):539-544.
• [52]Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, Barry MJ, Kantoff PW, Lee PA, McMahon PM: Observation versus initial treatment for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013, 158(12):853-860.
• [53]Keegan KA, Dall’Era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, Evans CP: Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer 2012, 118(14):3512-3518.
• [54]Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm M-O, Bjartell AS, Montorsi F, Freedland SJ, Erbersdobler A, van der Kwast TH: The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011, 60(2):291-303.
• [55]Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Brendler CB: Radical prostatectomy for impalpable prostate cancer: the Johns Hopkins experience with tumors found on transurethral resection (stages T1A and T1B) and on needle biopsy (stage T1C). J Urol 1994, 152(5 Pt 2):1721-1729.
• [56]Oliveira IS, Pontes-Junior J, Abe DK, Crippa A, Dall’oglio MF, Nesralah AJ, Leite KR, Reis ST, Srougi M: Undergrading and understaging in patients with clinically insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 2010, 36(3):292-299.
• [57]Sutcliffe P, Hummel S, Simpson E, Young T, Rees A, Wilkinson A, Hamdy F, Clarke N, Staffurth J: Use of classical and novel biomarkers as prognostic risk factors for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2009, 13(5):1-219. iii, xi-xiii
• [58]Choi WW, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, D’Amico AV, Williams SB, Hu JC: The effect of minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy surgeon volume. Urol Oncol 2012, 30(5):569-576.
• [59]Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA, Reuther AM, Kattan MW, Pontes JE, Scardino PT: The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007, 99(15):1171-1177.
• [60]Fryback DG, Lawrence WF Jr: Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making 1997, 17(3):276-284.
• [61]Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, Leidl R: A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoecon 2004, 22(13):857-876.
• [62]Wilt TJ, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, Kane RL: Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148(6):435-448.
• [63]Becker A, Kluth LA, Beermann S, Seiler D, Recker F, Chun FK, Weissbach L: 272 The HAROW study–an observational health service study, capturing current low-risk-prostate cancer treatment practice patterns in Germany. Eur Urol Suppl 2013, 12(1):e272.
• [64]Wiegel T, Albers P, Bussar-Maatz R, Gottberg A, Harter M, Kieser M, Kristiansen G, Nettekoven G, Martus P, Schmidberger H, Wellek S, Stöckle M: PREFERE–the German prostatic cancer study: questions and claims surrounding study initiation in January 2013. Urologe A 2013, 52(4):576-579.
• [65]Koerber F, Rolauffs B, Rogowski W: Early evaluation and value-based pricing of regenerative medicine technologies. Regen Med 2013, 8(6):747-758.
• [66]Feldman-Stewart D, Capirci C, Brennenstuhl S, Tong C, Abacioglu U, Gawkowska-Suwinska M, van Gils F, Heyda A, Igdem S, Macias V, Grillo IM, Moynihan C, Pijls-Johannesma M, Parker C, Pimentel N, Wördehoff H: Information for decision making by patients with early-stage prostate cancer: a comparison across 9 countries. Med Decis Making 2011, 31(5):754-766.