A comprehensive analysis of cost of an active surveillance cohort compared to radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for prostate cancer

Comparison of the medical costs between active surveillance and other treatments for early prostate cancer in Japan using data from the PRIAS-JAPAN study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the medical costs of active surveillance with those of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and hormone therapy for low-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

The costs of protocol biopsies performed in the first year of surveillance (between January 2010 and June 2020) and those of brachytherapy and radiation therapy performed between May 2019 and June 2020 at the Kagawa University Hospital were analyzed. Hormone therapy costs were assumed to be the costs of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogs for over 5 years. Active surveillance-eligible patients were defined based on the following: age <74 years, ≤T2, Gleason score ≤6, prostate-specific antigen level ≤10 ng/ml, and 1-2 positive cores. We estimated the total number of active surveillance-eligible patients in Japan based on the Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer (J-CAP) study and the 2017 cancer statistical data. We then calculated the 5-year treatment costs of active surveillance-eligible patients using the J-CAP and PRIAS-JAPAN study data.

RESULTS

In 2017, number of active surveillance-eligible patients in Japan was estimated to be 2808. The 5-year total costs of surveillance, prostatectomy, brachytherapy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy were 1.65, 14.0, 4.61, 4.04, and 5.87 million United States dollar (USD), respectively. If 50% and 100% of the patients in each treatment group had opted for active surveillance as the initial treatment, the total treatment cost would have been reduced by USD 6.89 million (JPY 889 million) and USD 13.8 million (JPY 1.78 billion), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Expanding active surveillance to eligible patients with prostate cancer helps save medical costs.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies among men worldwide. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening shows uncertain benefits and harms from clinical and economic perspectives, resulting in an important impact on healthcare systems. Because of nonstandardized studies and substantial differences among populations, data are still inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to carry out long-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis on the PSA-screened population from the service provider's perspective in the Brazilian population.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using clinical outcomes obtained from 9692 men enrolled in the PSA screening program. Prostate cancer treatments, 5-year follow-up outcomes, and all related costs were examined. Data were compared with a nonscreened prostate cancer population to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). ICER and ICUR were compared with the Brazilian-established willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (WTP = R$ 114 026.55).

RESULTS

A total of 251 of 9692 men had a diagnosis of prostate cancer (2.6%), of which 90% had localized disease. Two hundred and five patients were treated as follows: surgery (45.37%); radiation therapy (11.22%); radiation plus androgen deprivation therapy (21.95%); active surveillance (13.17%); exclusive androgen deprivation therapy (7.32%); and watchful waiting (0.98%). Two simulated cohorts were compared based on screening and nonscreening groups. Values obtained were-ICER of R$ 44 491.39 per life saved and ICUR of R$ 10 851.56 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained-below the Brazilian WTP threshold and showed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility advantages.

CONCLUSION

According to the Brazilian WTP, PSA screening is a cost-effective policy from a hospital and long-term perspective and should have more standardized studies developed in different populations and economies.

Real-world Evidence to Estimate Prostate Cancer Costs for First-line Treatment or Active Surveillance

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Changes in screening guidelines, adoption of active surveillance (AS), and implementation of high-cost technologies have changed treatment costs. Traditional cost-effectiveness studies rely on clinical trial protocols unlikely to capture actual practice behavior, and existing studies use data predating new technologies. Real-world evidence reflecting these changes is lacking.

Objective

To assess real-world costs of first-line prostate cancer management.

Design setting and participants

We used clinical electronic health records for 2008-2018 linked with the California Cancer Registry and the Medicare Fee Schedule to assess costs over 24 or 60 mo following diagnosis. We identified surgery or radiation treatments with structured methods, while we used both structured data and natural language processing to identify AS.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Our results are risk-stratified calculated cost per day (CCPD) for first-line management, which are independent of treatment duration. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare unadjusted CCPD while analysis of covariance log-linear models adjusted estimates for age and Charlson comorbidity.

Results and limitations

In 3433 patients, surgery (54.6%) was more common than radiation (22.3%) or AS (23.0%). Two years following diagnosis, AS ($2.97/d) was cheaper than surgery ($5.67/d) or radiation ($9.34/d) in favorable disease, while surgery ($7.17/d) was cheaper than radiation ($16.34/d) for unfavorable disease. At 5 yr, AS ($2.71/d) remained slightly cheaper than surgery ($2.87/d) and radiation ($4.36/d) in favorable disease, while for unfavorable disease surgery ($4.15/d) remained cheaper than radiation ($10.32/d). Study limitations include information derived from a single healthcare system and costs based on benchmark Medicare estimates rather than actual payment exchanges.

Patient summary

Active surveillance was cheaper than surgery (-47.6%) and radiation (-68.2%) at 2 yr for favorable-risk disease, which decreased by 5 yr (-5.6% and -37.8%, respectively). Surgery was less costly than radiation for unfavorable risk for both intervals (-56.1% and -59.8%, respectively).