Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review

The effect of the da Vinci® Vessel Sealer on robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy complications

The da Vinci® Vessel Sealer is a major contributor to the total cost of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). We aimed to assess whether the use of the Vessel Sealer is associated with better surgical outcomes in a population of patients that underwent RALP with lymphadenectomy. We tested whether the use of the Vessel Sealer is associated with the development of lymphocele and/or other surgical outcomes. Most surgeons used the Vessel Sealer in almost all or almost no patients. Thus, to avoid the potential confounding variable of surgeon skill, we performed the initial analyses using data from a single surgeon who changed practice over time, and then using the entire population. Overall, the Vessel Sealer was used in 500 (36%) RALPs. Surgeon 1 performed 492 surgeries, and used the Vessel Sealer in 191 (39%). The Vessel Sealer was not associated with better surgical outcomes in patients operated on by Surgeon 1. The odds ratio for development of lymphocele was 1.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-6.75). In the entire population, use of the sealer was significantly associated with a very small reduction of blood loss (22 cc, CI 13-30) but with a 32-min increase in the operating room time (CI 26-37). Use of the Vessel Sealer will have, at best, a very small effect on RALP outcomes that is of highly questionable relevance given its cost. In light of these results, the Vessel Sealer will only be used at our institution in the context of clinical trials.

Hospital rating websites play a minor role for uro-oncologic patients when choosing a hospital for major surgery: results of the German multicenter NAVIGATOR-study

PURPOSE

Hospital rating websites (HRW) offer decision support in hospital choice for patients. To investigate the impact of HRWs of uro-oncological patients undergoing elective surgery in Germany.

METHODS

From 01/2020 to 04/2021, patients admitted for radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, or renal tumor surgery received a questionnaire on decision-making in hospital choice and the use of HRWs at 10 German urologic clinics.

RESULTS

Our study includes n = 812 completed questionnaires (response rate 81.2%). The mean age was 65.2 ± 10.2 years; 16.5% were women. Patients were scheduled for prostatectomy in 49.1%, renal tumor surgery in 20.3%, and cystectomy in 13.5% (other 17.1%). Following sources of information influenced the decision process of hospital choice: urologists' recommendation (52.6%), previous experience in the hospital (20.3%), recommendations from social environment (17.6%), the hospital's website (10.8%) and 8.2% used other sources. Only 4.3% (n = 35) used a HRW for decision making. However, 29% changed their hospital choice due to the information provided HRW. The most frequently used platforms were Weisse-Liste.de (32%), the AOK-Krankenhausnavigator (13%) and Qualitaetskliniken.de (8%). On average, patients rated positively concerning satisfaction with the respective HRW on the Acceptability E-Scale (mean values of the individual items: 1.8-2.1).

CONCLUSION

In Germany, HRWs play a minor role for uro-oncologic patients undergoing elective surgery. Instead, personal consultation of the treating urologist seems to be far more important. Although patients predominantly rated the provided information of the HRW as positive, only a quarter of users changed the initial choice of hospital.

Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

Does type of robotic platform make a difference in the final cost of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy?

This study evaluates the difference of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) costs in patients with similar preoperative characteristics operated on using the da Vinci^® SP and Xi robotic platforms. We performed a retrospective analysis on 71 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent RARP with the SP robot between June 2019 and April 2020. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed and 71 patients were selected from a cohort of 875 who underwent RARP with the Xi robot in the same period. We divided the total expense per surgery into the cost of disposable materials, robotic instruments (initial purchasing cost divided by the number of "lives"), and operative room costs. Only variable costs are included in this study, as fixed costs do not vary between procedures and are the same for both cohorts. Fixed costs include anesthesia, pathology, surgeon, and hospitalization fees. The median total cost for SP-RARP was $5586 ($5360-$5982) USD and $4875 ($4661-$5093) USD with the XI for a median cost difference of $707 ($584-$832) (P < 0.001). The median cost of disposables for the SP was $1877 ($1588-$2193) USD and for the Xi $1527 ($1407-$1781) USD, P < 0.001. Non-disposable instruments cost per case (fixed cost) was $1610 and $1270 USD for the SP and Xi, respectively. The cost of radical prostatectomy in the SP cohort is higher than the Xi cohort. The greater price was primarily due to the increased cost of instruments and disposable materials. In our experience, the lack of GelPOINT and space maker is also crucial factors to decrease the SP total cost.

Bioethical implications of robotic surgery in urology: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Robotic technologies are being increasingly implemented in healthcare, including urology, holding promises for improving medicine worldwide. However, these new approaches raise ethical concerns for professionals, patients, researchers and institutions that need to be addressed. The aim of this review is to investigate the existing literature related to bioethical issues associated with robotic surgery in urology, in order to identify current challenges and make preliminary suggestions to ensure an ethical implementation of these technologies.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the pertaining literature through a systematic search of two databases (PubMed and Web of Science) in August 2020.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 76 articles for full-text evaluation and 48 articles were included in the narrative review. Several bioethical issues were identified and can be categorized into five main subjects: 1) robotic surgery accessibility; 2) safety; 3) gender gap; 4) costs and 5) learning curve. 1) Robotic surgery is expensive, and in some health systems may lead to inequality in healthcare access. In more affluent countries the national distribution of several robotic platforms may influence the centralization of robotic surgery, therefore potentially affecting oncological and functional outcomes in low-volume centers. 2) There is a considerable gap between surgical skills and patients' perception of competence, leading to ethical consequences on modern healthcare. Published incidence of adverse events during robotic surgery in large series is between 2% and 15%, which does not significantly differ amongst open or laparoscopic approaches. 3) No data about gap differences in accessibility to robotic platforms were retrieved from our search. 4) Robotic platforms are expensive but a key reason why hospitals are willing to absorb the high upfront costs is patient demand. It is possible to achieve cost-equivalence between open and robotic prostatectomy if the volume of centers is higher than 10 cases per week. 5) A validated, structured curriculum and accreditation has been created for robotic surgery. This allows acquisition and development of basic and complex robotic skills focusing on patient safety and short learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Tech-medicine is rapidly moving forward. Robotic approach to urology seems to be accessible in more affluent countries, safe, economically sustainable, and easy to learn with an appropriate learning curve for both sex. It is mandatory to keep maintaining a critical rational approach with constant control of the available evidence regarding efficacy, efficiency and safety.

Robotic surgery costs: Revealing the real villains

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the main drivers of robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) hospitalization costs, in addition to assess perioperative predictors that impact costs.

METHODS

Overall, 474 RARP were analyzed between February 2018 and December 2019. The association between perioperative variables and total direct costs was analyzed by simple and multiple linear regression.

DISCUSSION

The main drivers of RARP hospitalization costs were robotic surgical supplies. Costs increased with American Society of Anesthesiologists score 3, a one-hour increase in OR time, increased utilization of polymeric clip packs and longer length of hospital stay. There was a 11.5% reduction in costs with the use of four robotic instruments instead of five.

CONCLUSION

Costs of hospitalization were mainly influenced by the OR time, use of surgical supplies and length of hospital stay. Reducing the number of robotic instruments used in RARP represented the potentially modifiable factor with the greatest impact on cost reduction.

Diffusion and adoption of the surgical robot in urology

Over the last two decades, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in hospital systems around the world. Leading this charge has been Intuitive Surgical Inc.’s da Vinci robotic system (Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Through its innovative technology and unique revenue model, Intuitive has installed 4,986 robotic surgical systems worldwide in the last two decades. The rapid rate of adoption and diffusion of the surgical robot has been propelled by many important industry-specific factors. In this review, we propose a model that explains the successful adoption of robotic surgery due to its three core groups: the surgeon, the hospital administrator, and the patient.

Learning Curve of an Innovative "3-Port" Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis from 2016 to 2019

BACKGROUND

"Three-port" laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has been applied as a substitution for the conventional 4- to 5-port LRP to treat prostate cancer (PCa) patients in our institution.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of an innovative "3-port" LRP for PCa patients.

METHODS

206 patients who received "3-port" LRP were retrospectively reviewed between January 2016 and December 2019 at our institution. According to the different years of operations performed, all of the patients were divided into group A (No. 1-50), group B (No. 51-107), group C (No. 108-160), and group D (No. 161-206). A learning curve was depicted by analyzing the parameters of operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), hospitalization, and drainage indwelling days.

RESULTS

All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics (p > 0.05). The sloping learning curve for the surgeon showed that OT and EBL were strongly correlated with an accumulated experience when compared between group A and the other groups (p < 0.05), denoting that the surgical skill of the "3-port" LRP can be fully mastered after around 50 cases. Although no significant correlation with additional experience was observed in the hospitalization and drainage indwelling days among groups, a tendency towards less hospitalization and drainage indwelling days was still reflected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 4-year analysis based on a single-center experience exhibits that the innovative "3-port" LRP appears to be favorable with decreasing tendency in OT and EBL with experience accumulation. In view of its advantage of perioperative parameters with an evidently improved learning curve, it should be recommended in the clinical practice!

Comparison of functional and oncological outcomes of innovative "three-port" and traditional "four-port" laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

Background

To compare the functional and oncological outcomes between innovative “three-port” and traditional “four-port” laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

We retrospectively collected the data of PCa patients treated at our institutions from June 2012 to May 2016. According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 234 patients were included in the study, including 112 in group A (four-port) and 122 in group B (three-port). The perioperatively surgical characteristics, functional and oncological outcomes were compared between groups.

Results

There were no statistical differences in the baseline parameters between these two groups. Compared with group A, the operative time (OT) and estimated blood loss (EBL) were significantly less in group B. On follow-up, the rate of positive surgical margin (PSM), prostate specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence and continence after LRP did not show any statistically significant difference between the groups. An identical conclusion was also received in comparison of overall survival (OS) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) between both groups.

Conclusions

Innovative “three-port” LRP can significantly shorten the OT and reduce the EBL compared with the traditional “four-port” LRP. Meanwhile, it does not increase the rate of PSM and PSA biochemical recurrence. “Three-port” LRP could be popularized in the future in view of its superior surgical technique, considerably better functional outcomes and remarkable oncological control.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience

Prostate cancer (PCa) treatment has been greatly impacted by the robotic surgery. The economics literature about PCa is scarce. We aim to carry-out cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) using the "time-driven activity-based cost" methodology. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 2013 were retrospectively analyzed in a cancer center over a 5-year period. Fifty-six patients underwent RALP and 149 patients underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The amounts were subject to a 5% discount as correction of monetary value considering time elapsed. Calculation of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) related to events avoided and the Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) related to "QALY saved" were performed. QALY was performed using values of utility and "disutility" weights from the "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry". Hypothetical cohorts were simulated with 1000 patients in each group, based on the treatment outcomes. Total and average costs were R$1,903,671.93, and R$12,776.32 for the RRP group, and R$1,373,987.26, and R$24,535.49 for the RALP group, respectively. The costs to treat the hypothetical cohorts were R$10,010,582.35 for RRP, and R$19,224,195.90 for RALP. ICER calculation evidenced R$9,213,613.55 of difference between groups. ICUR was R$ 22,690.83 per QALY saved. Limitations were the lack of cost-effectiveness analyses related to re-hospitalization rates and complications, single center perspective, and currency-translation differences. Medical fees were not included. RALP showed advantages in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility over RRP in the long term. Despite the increased costs to the introduction of robotic technology, its adoption should be encouraged due to the gains.

A prospective comparative study of routine versus deferred pelvic drain placement after radical prostatectomy: impact on complications and opioid use

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association of post-RP drain placement with post-operative complications and opioid use at a high-volume institution.

METHODS

A prospective, comparative cohort study of patients undergoing robot-assisted or open RP was conducted. Patients for two surgeons did not routinely receive pelvic drains ("No Drain" arm), while the remainder routinely placed drains ("Drain" arm). Outcomes were evaluated at 30 days including Clavien-Dindo complications and opioid use. Intention-to-treat primary analysis and additional secondary analyses were performed using appropriate statistical tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 498 total patients, 144 (28.9%) were in the No Drain arm (all robot-assisted) and 354 (71.1%) in the Drain arm. In the No Drain arm, 19 (13.2%) intraoperatively were chosen to receive drains. There was no difference in overall or major (Clavien ≥ 3) complications between groups (p = 0.2 and 0.4, respectively). Drain deferral did not predict complications on multivariable analysis adjusted for age, BMI, comorbidities, clinical risk, surgical approach, operating time, lymphadenectomy, and number of nodes removed [OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34-1.11, p = 0.10]; nor did it predict symptomatic fluid collection, adjusting for lymphadenectomy and nodes removed [OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.43-3.60, p = 0.8]. Drain deferral did not decrease opioid use (p = 0.5). Per protocol analysis and restriction to robot-assisted cases demonstrated similar results.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in adverse events, complications, symptomatic collections, or opioid use with deferral of routine drain placement after RP. Experienced surgeons may safely defer drain placement in the majority of robot-assisted RP cases.

Single-institution Cost Comparison: Single-port Versus Multiport Robotic Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

In the era of efficient value-based health care, each surgical innovation should be proven to be cost-effective for the patient and the hospital administration.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs associated with robot-assisted prostatectomy using a single-port (SP) or multiport (MP) robotic platform.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Costs for surgical care for consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer treated from November 2018 to November 2019 were itemized and evaluated.

INTERVENTION

Patients were treated using either the SP (n = 78) or MP (n = 97) platform.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Demographics, perioperative data, and costs for surgical care of patients in both groups were analyzed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATION

The mean cost for prostatectomy was comparable between SP ($13 512 ± $1615) and MP ($13 284 ± $1360; p = 0.32). The main cost differences between the groups were the cost of hospitalization, which was lower in the SP group (p < 0.001), offset by the cost of disposables in the operating room, which was higher in the SP group (p < 0.001). The mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the SP group (9.84 ± 11.3 vs 35.5 ± 29.1 h; p < 0.001) and the proportion of patients discharged home on the day of surgery was higher in the SP group (70% vs 5%; p < 0.001). The main limitation of this study is its retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the costs for SP and MP prostatectomy are comparable. The higher SP cost for consumable surgical materials is offset by the lower cost associated with hospitalization, which was largely due to a shorter hospital stay after SP surgery.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we found that implementation of the new single-port robotic platform for radical prostatectomy was not associated with higher surgical care costs compared to conventional multiport surgery.

Ectopic subcutaneous transplantation of fetal rat urogenital sinus and seminal vesicle promotes the organ growth and formation

PURPOSE

The fate of subcutaneously transplanted urogenital sinus (UGS) and seminal vesicle (SV) was investigated in the present study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fetal UGS and SV extracted from 20-embryonic-day-old male normal and GFP transgenic rats were subcutaneously transplanted into 7-week-old male immunologically inhibited rats. The transplants were then examined at 2, 4, 8, and 16 weeks after transplantation. We analyzed the survival ratio, weight, and histopathology as well as the immunohistochemical characteristics of the transplanted tissues. For control experiments, 2-, 4-, 8-, and 16-week-old normal male rats were used.

RESULTS

Almost all of the transplanted tissues survived under the skin, and the tissue weights increased over time after transplantation. The histopathological characteristics and immunohistochemical staining pattern with certain antibodies of the transplanted tissues were similar to those of normal adult rat prostate and seminal vesicle. The transplanted GFP transgenic tissues demonstrated spontaneous growth and organ formation under the skin, showing distribution and movement of transplanted cells and tissues.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneously transplanted fetal UGS and SV were able to develop into mature adult organs.

Analysis of Learning Curve in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performed by a Surgeon

This study aimed to report the learning curve in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by one surgeon who is experienced in laparoscopic prostatectomies. The records of 145 RARP cases performed between 2015 and 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into three groups: group 1 comprised the first 49 cases, group 2 comprised 50–88 cases, and the rest of the cases were assigned to group 3. Continence was defined as the necessity to use at least one pad during a day. Additionally, erectile function recovery was defined as having erection sufficient for sexual intercourse regardless of using a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor. Continence and erectile function recovery were assessed during interviews at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. First, all procedures were successfully performed without conversions or blood transfusions. The median follow-up period was 22 months. Moreover, the median skin-to-skin operative time (OT) was 220 minutes. The median blood loss was 150 ml, and the mean hospital stay was 8.9 ± 3.87 days. The median prostate volume was 36 cm³. The overall positive surgical margin rate was 13.1%. Overall, 38 (26.2%) postoperative complications were observed, and 17.9% of them were graded as minor. Anastomotic leakage decreased significantly from group 1 to group 3 (26.5% and 7%, respectively). The continence recovery (0-1 pad) rates were 60.6%, 75.7%, and 84.9% at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. Subsequently, the erectile function recovery rates were 50.9% and 65.4% at 6 and 12 months after surgery, respectively. In conclusion, there are several types of learning curves for RARP. First, the shallowest learning curve was observed for the OT. Regarding the analysis of “advanced learning curve,” demonstrating the improvement of OT and blood loss is considered insufficient. Therefore, additional oncological and functional results that require a longer period of investigation are required.

Reducing preoperative blood orders and costs for radical prostatectomy

Aim: A maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) was implemented at our institution to optimize preoperative blood ordering and reduce unnecessary blood preparation for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), a common urologic procedure. Materials & methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent RP from 2010 to 2016 and categorized patients by date of RP (pre- or post-MSBOS) and compared preoperative blood-ordering practices. Results: After MSBOS implementation, preoperative blood orders changed from predominantly type and cross-match 2 units (53%) to no sample (56%) for robot-assisted laparoscopic RP, and from mostly type and cross-match 2 units (62%) to type and screen (75%) for open RP with resultant cost savings. Conclusion: MSBOS implementation and compliance decreases unnecessary preoperative blood orders.

Financial impact of adapting robotics to a thoracic practice in an academic institution

Background

In the current healthcare environment there is increasing pressure to deliver high quality care to more people at less cost. Robotic assisted thoracic surgical procedures (RATS) have been shown by some to be more expensive than conventional endoscopic or open surgery. We initiated this study to assess the financial impact of RATS compared to robotic non-thoracic surgery in an academic institution.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed for all patients who underwent any robotically assisted surgical procedure at Temple University Hospital (TUH) in fiscal year 2015. Surgical volume, operative time, length of stay (LOS), case mix index (CMI), direct and indirect costs, hospital charges, surgical charges, contribution margin (CM) and net margin (NM) were collected for the thoracic surgery service in addition to other services which performed more than 20 robotic cases a year. We analyzed the data according to the following strategy: (I) financial performance for both inpatient and outpatient robotic procedures for the entire hospital; (II) compared financial data for robotic and non-robotic surgeries in the thoracic surgery division; (III) compared thoracic surgery data with the STS database for the same time period in order to calculate any potential cost saving (PCS).

Results

In FY15, a total of 696 robotic procedures were performed by the various services at TUH with a mean of 58 cases each month. Although CM was highest for cardiovascular surgery, the highest NM was by thoracic surgery. Despite having the highest volume and a positive CM, the mostly outpatient urology service showed a negative NM in FY15. A CMI-adjusted comparison on 208 of the 589 robotic procedures where there was a comparable group of inpatients who had open procedures, the mean direct cost for non-robotic procedures was $6,239, 9% less than for robotic procedures. The mean total cost for non-robotic procedures was only 3.64% ($435) less than that for robotic procedures ($11,502 vs. $11,937). When compared with the UHC expected LOS, the robotic group had a lower LOS while the non-robotic group had a higher LOS. The mean total direct costs were $3,510 less for the robotic procedures ($16,502 vs. $20,012). When compared to similar cases reported to the STS in FY 2015, the length of stay, conversion rate, transfusion rate, post-operative complications and OR time compared favorably. Using calculations based on published data, the potential cost savings are in the 1 to 2 million dollar range compared to traditional endoscopic or open procedures reported to the STS.

Conclusions

High acuity services such as Thoracic Surgery drive higher CM per case as long as variable costs especially LOS are kept low. Procedures with lower CMI may not provide a high enough CM to offset the fixed and variable costs. Robotic surgical cases performed in the outpatient setting may incur significant losses as the reimbursement does not cover the direct costs. Hospitals should preferentially allocate robotic resources to inpatient procedures with higher CMI and work to decrease overall LOS.

A Review on Curability of Cancers: More Efforts for Novel Therapeutic Options Are Needed

Cancer remains a major cause of death globally. Given its relapsing and fatal features, curing cancer seems to be something hardly possible for the majority of patients. In view of the development in cancer therapies, this article summarizes currently available cancer therapeutics and cure potential by cancer type and stage at diagnosis, based on literature and database reviews. Currently common cancer therapeutics include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. However, treatment with curative intent by these methods are mainly eligible for patients with localized disease or treatment-sensitive cancers and therefore their contributions to cancer curability are relatively limited. The prognosis for cancer patients varies among different cancer types with a five-year relative survival rate (RSR) of more than 80% in thyroid cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. The most dismal prognosis is observed in patients with small-cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, oesophagal cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, non-small cell lung cancer, and gastric cancer with a five-year RSR ranging between 7% and 28%. The current review is intended to provide a general view about how much we have achieved in curing cancer as regards to different therapies and cancer types. Finally, we propose a small molecule dual-targeting broad-spectrum anticancer strategy called OncoCiDia, in combination with emerging highly sensitive liquid biopsy, with theoretical curative potential for the management of solid malignancies, especially at the micro-cancer stage.

National practice patterns and direct medical costs for prostate cancer in Korea across a 10 year period: a nationwide population-based study using a national health insurance database

BACKGROUND

A complete enumeration study was conducted to evaluate trends in national practice patterns and direct medical costs for prostate cancer (PCa) in Korea over a 10-year retrospective period using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.

METHODS

Reimbursement records for 874,924 patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2014 with primary PCa according to the International Classification of Disease (ICD) 10th revision code C61 were accessed. To assess direct medical costs for patients newly diagnosed after 2005, data from 68,596 patients managed between January 2005 and 31 December 2014 were evaluated.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2014, the total number of PCa patients showed a 2.6-fold increase. Surgery and androgen deprivation therapy were the most common first-line treatment, alone or within the context of combined therapy. Surgery as a monotherapy was performed in 23.5% of patients in 2005, and in 39.4% of patients in 2014. From 2008, the rate of robot-assisted RP rose sharply, showing a similar rate to open RP in 2014. Average total treatment costs in the 12 months post-diagnosis were around 10 million Korean won. Average annual treatment costs thereafter were around 5 million Korean won. Out-of-pocket expenditure was highest in the first year post-diagnosis, and ranged from 12 to 17% thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2005 and 2014, a substantial change was observed in the national practice pattern for PCa in Korea. The present data provide a reliable overview of treatment patterns and medical costs for PCa in Korea.

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) comparing with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with clinically localized prostate cancer through all prospective comparative studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in August 2018 using the Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies including patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for study inclusion. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and 9 prospective studies were included in this systematic review. There were no significant differences between RARP/LRP and ORP in overall complication rate, major complication rate, overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, ≤pT2 tumor PSM rate, ≥pT3 tumor PSM rate. Moreover, RARP/LRP and ORP showed similarity in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Urinary continence and erectile function at 12 months postoperatively between RARP and ORP are also comparable. RARP/LRP were associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss [mean difference (MD) -749.67, 95% CI -1038.52 to -460.82, P = .001], lower transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30, P < .001) and less hospitalization duration (MD -1.18, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.19, P = .02). And RARP/LRP required more operative time (MD 50.02, 95% CI 6.50 to 93.55, P = .02) and cost.

CONCLUSION

RARP/LRP is associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rate and less hospitalization duration. The available data were insufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of postoperative complications, functional and oncologic outcomes.

Literature review of the burden of prostate cancer in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Canada

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most frequently reported cancer in males in Europe, and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The aim of the current review was to characterize the clinical, economic and humanistic burden of disease associated with prostate cancer in France, Germany, the UK and Canada.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies reporting incidence and/or mortality rates, costs and health state utilities associated with prostate cancer in the settings of interest. For inclusion, studies were required to be published in English in full-text form from 2006 onwards.

RESULTS

Incidence studies showed that in all settings the incidence of prostate cancer has increased substantially over the past two decades, driven in part by increased uptake of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening leading to earlier identification of tumors, but which has also led to over-treatment, compounding the economic burden of disease. Mortality rates have declined over the same time frame, driven by earlier detection and improvements in treatment. Both prostate cancer itself, as well as treatment and treatment-related complications, are associated with reduced quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden, whilst earlier detection and aggressive treatment is associated with improved survival, over-treatment of men with indolent tumors compounds the already significant burden of disease and treatment can lead to long-term side effects including impotence and impaired urinary and/or bowel function. There is currently an unmet clinical need for diagnostic and/or prognostic tools that facilitate personalized prostate cancer treatment, and potentially reduce the clinical, economic and humanistic burden of invasive cancer treatment.

Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: A machine learning framework for intelligent analysis of patient-reported outcomes from online cancer support groups

BACKGROUND

The advantages of Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in Prostate cancer perioperatively are well-established, but quality of life is more contentious. Increasingly, patients are utilising online cancer support groups (OCSG) to express themselves. Currently there is no method of analysis of these sophisticated data sources. We have used the PRIME-2 (Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration version 2) framework for automated identification and intelligent analysis of decision-making, functional and emotional outcomes in men undergoing ORP vs. RARP from OCSG discussions.

METHODS

The PRIME-2 framework was developed to retrospectively analyse individualised patient-reported information from 5,157 patients undergoing RARP and 579 ORP. The decision factors, side effects, and emotions in 2 groups were analysed and compared using Chi-squared, t tests, and Pearson correlation.

RESULTS

There were no differences in Gleason score, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), and age between the groups. Surgeon experience and preservation of erectile function (P < 0.01) were important factors in the decision making process. There were no significant differences in urinary, sexual, or bowel symptoms between ORP and RARP on a monthly basis during the initial 12 months. Emotions expressed by patients undergoing RARP were more consistent and positive while ORP expressed more negative emotions at the time of surgery and 3 months postsurgery (P < 0.05), due to pain and discomfort, and during ninth month due to fear and anxiety of pending PSA tests.

CONCLUSIONS

ORP and RARP demonstrated similar side effect profiles for 12 months, but PRIME-2 enables identification of important quality of life features and emotions over time. It is timely for clinicians to accept OCSG as an adjunct to Prostate cancer care.

Quality of care and economic considerations of active surveillance of men with prostate cancer

The current health care climate mandates the delivery of high-value care for patients considering active surveillance for newly-diagnosed prostate cancer. Value is defined by increasing benefits (e.g., quality) for acceptable costs. This review discusses quality of care considerations for men contemplating active surveillance, and highlights cost implications at the patient, health-system, and societal level related to pursuit of non-interventional management of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. In general, most quality measures are focused on prostate cancer care in general, rather that active surveillance patients specifically. However, most prostate cancer quality measures are pertinent to men seeking close observation of their prostate tumors with active surveillance. These include accurate documentation of clinical stage, informed discussion of all treatment options, and appropriate use of imaging for less-aggressive prostate cancer. Furthermore, interventions that may help improve the quality of care for active surveillance patients are reviewed (e.g., quality collaboratives, judicious antibiotic use, etc.). Finally, the potential economic impact and benefits of broad acceptance of active surveillance strategies are highlighted.

Robotics in urology

Twenty years after it was introduced, robotic surgery has become more commonplace in urology – we examine its current uses and controversies

[Robotic Surgery - Who is The Boss?]

In the head and neck region, great potential is seen in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). Mainly in cancer surgery, the use of robotic systems seems to be of interest. Until today, two robotic systems (DaVinci® und FLEX®) have gained approval for clinical use in the head and neck region, and multiple other systems are currently in pre-clinical testing. Although, certain groups of patients may benefit from RAS, no unbiased randomized clinical studies are available. Until today, it was not possible to satisfactorily prove any advantage of RAS as compared to standard procedures. The limited clinical benefit and the additional financial burden seem to be the main reasons, why the comprehensive application of RAS has not been realized so far.This review article describes the large variety of clinical applications for RAS in the head and neck region. In addition, the financial and technical challenges, as well as ongoing developments of RAS are highlighted. Special focus is put on risks associated with RAS and current clinical studies. We believe, that RAS will find its way into clinical routine during the next years. Therefore, medical staff will have to increasingly face the technical, scientific and ethical features of RAS.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions.

RESULTS

We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short-term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] -1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: -1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD -1.05, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI: -2.19 to -1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78-48 fewer).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.

The influence of previous robotic experience in the initial learning curve of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Introduction:

This study analyzed the impact of the experience with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RALP) on the initial experience with Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP) by examining perioperative results and early outcomes of 110 patients. LRPs were performed by two ro-botic fellowship trained surgeons with daily practice in RALP.

Patients and Methods:

110 LRP were performed to treat aleatory selected patients. The patients were divided into 4 groups for prospective analyses. A transperitoneal approach that simulates the RALP technique was used.

Results:

The median operative time was 163 minutes (110-240), and this time significantly decreased through case 40, when the time plateaued (p=0.0007). The median blood loss was 250mL. No patients required blood transfusion. There were no life-threatening complications or deaths. Minor complications were uniformly distributed along the series (P=0.6401). The overall positive surgical margins (PSM) rate was 28.2% (20% in pT2 and 43.6% in pT3). PSM was in the prostate apex in 61.3% of cases. At the 12-month follow-up, 88% of men were continent (0-1 pad).

Conclusions:

The present study shows that there are multiple learning curves for LRP. The shallowest learning curve was seen for the operative time. Surgeons transitioning between the RALP and LRP techniques were considered competent based on the low perioperative complication rate, absence of major complications, and lack of blood transfusions. This study shows that a learning curve still exists and that there are factors that must be considered by surgeons transitioning between the two techniques.

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

Robot-assisted surgery in a broader healthcare perspective: a difference-in-difference-based cost analysis of a national prostatectomy cohort

OBJECTIVE

To estimate costs attributable to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) as compared with open prostatectomy (OP) and laparoscopic prostatectomies (LP) in a National Health Service perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Register-based cohort study of 4309 consecutive patients who underwent prostatectomy from 2006 to 2013 (2241 RALP, 1818 OP and 250 LP). Patients were followed from 12 months before to 12 months after prostatectomy with respect to service use in primary care (general practitioners, therapists, specialists etc) and hospitals (inpatient and outpatient activity related to prostatectomy and comorbidity). Tariffs of the activity-based remuneration system for primary care and the Diagnosis-Related Grouping case-mix system for hospital-based care were used to value service use. Costs attributable to RALP were estimated using a difference-in-difference analytical approach and adjusted for patient-level and hospital-level risk selection using multilevel regression.

RESULTS

No significant effect of RALP on resource-use was observed except for a marginally lower use of primary care and fewer bed days as compared with OP (not LP). The overall cost consequence of RALP was estimated at an additional €2459 (95% CI 1377 to 3540, p=0.003) as compared with OP and an additional €3860 (95% CI 559 to 7160, p=0.031) as compared with LP, mainly due to higher cost intensity during the index admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study from the Danish context, the use of RALP generates a factor 1.3 additional cost when compared with OP and a factor 1.6 additional cost when compared with LP, on average, based on 12 months follow-up. The policy interpretation is that the use of robots for prostatectomy should be driven by clinical superiority and that formal effectiveness analysis is required to determine whether the current and eventual new purchasing of robot capacity is best used for prostatectomy.

Pentafecta Rates of Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Our Experience after 150 Cases

Introduction

Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy with a flexible camera was developed to overcome the main limitation of traditional laparoscopic surgery, which is two-dimensional (2D) vision. The aim of our article is to present the largest casistic of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) available in literature and evaluate our results in terms of pentafecta and compare it with the literature.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent LRP with 3D technology between March 2014 and December 2015. Total operative time (TOT), anasthomosis time (AT), blood loss and complications were registered. All patients presented at least 3 months of follow-up. Surgical outcome was evaluated in terms of Pentafecta.

Results

One hundred fifty consecutive patients underwent 3D LRP. Mean follow-up was 16.9 months. Mean age was 67.7 ± 8.3 years (range 50-76). Mean preoperative PSA value was 8.3 ± 5.8 ng/ml and mean bioptic Gleason Score (GS) was 6.6. We had a mean TOT of 158 ± 23 minutes and a mean AT of 25 ± 12.6. Mean blood loss was 240 ± 40 ml. Eighteen (12%) postoperative complications occurred. Pathologic results: pT2 in 91 patients (58%) and pT3 in 59 (39.3%). Pentafecta was reached by 31.3% of patients at 3 months and 51.6% at 12 months.

Conclusions

Our oncological and functional results are comparable to those present in literature for laparoscopic and robotic surgery. We believe that our findings can encourage the use of 3D laparoscopy especially considering the increasing attention to healthcare costs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Cancer Control and Survival after Robot-Assisted versus Open Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Robot-assisted surgery has been rapidly adopted in the U.S. for prostate cancer. Its adoption has been driven by market forces and patient preference, and debate continues regarding whether it offers improved outcomes to justify the higher cost relative to open surgery. We examined the comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy in cancer control and survival in a nationally representative population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This population based observational cohort study of patients with prostate cancer undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy during 2003 to 2012 used data captured in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare linked database. Propensity score matching and time to event analysis were used to compare all cause mortality, prostate cancer specific mortality and use of additional treatment after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 6,430 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies and 9,161 open radical prostatectomies performed during 2003 to 2012 were identified. The use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy increased from 13.6% in 2003 to 2004 to 72.6% in 2011 to 2012. After a median followup of 6.5 years (IQR 5.2-7.9) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was associated with an equivalent risk of all cause mortality (HR 0.85, 0.72-1.01) and similar cancer specific mortality (HR 0.85, 0.50-1.43) vs open radical prostatectomy. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was also associated with less use of additional treatment (HR 0.78, 0.70-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has comparable intermediate cancer control as evidenced by less use of additional postoperative cancer therapies and equivalent cancer specific and overall survival. Longer term followup is needed to assess for differences in prostate cancer specific survival, which was similar during intermediate followup. Our findings have significant quality and cost implications, and provide reassurance regarding the adoption of more expensive technology in the absence of randomized controlled trials.

A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The economic value of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in the United States is still not well understood because of limited view analyses.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to examine the costs and benefits of RALP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy from an expanded view, including hospital, payer, and societal perspectives.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost comparison using clinical outcomes obtained from a systematic review of the published literature. Equipment costs were obtained from the manufacturer of the robotic system; other economic model parameters were obtained from government agencies, online resources, commercially available databases, an advisory expert panel, and the literature. Clinical point estimates and care pathways based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were used to model costs out to 3 years. Hospital costs and costs incurred for the patients' postdischarge complications, adjuvant and salvage radiation treatment, incontinence and potency treatment, and lost wages during recovery were considered. Robotic system costs were modeled in two ways: as hospital overhead (hospital overhead calculation: RALP-H) and as a function of robotic case volume (robotic amortization calculation: RALP-R). All costs were adjusted to year 2014 US dollars.

RESULTS

Because of more favorable clinical outcomes over 3 years, RALP provided hospital ($1094 savings with RALP-H, $341 deficit with RALP-R), payer ($1451), and societal ($1202) economic benefits relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 38% to 99% probability that RALP provides cost savings (depending on the perspective). Higher surgical consumable costs are offset by a decreased hospital stay, lower complication rate, and faster return to work.

Cost effectiveness of robot-assisted urologic oncological surgery in the United States

Urology has been on the forefront of technological advances in minimally invasive surgery, from laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgeries. As with all new technological advances in medicine, the results of new advances are compared to previously established gold standards. When it comes to robot-assisted urology, morbidity, oncological outcomes, and cost between the same surgeries performed in an open fashion vs with robot-assistance should be assessed. Because healthcare spending is increasingly under more scrutiny, there is debate on the cost effectiveness of robot-assisted surgeries given the high acquisition and maintenance cost of robotic systems. This articles aims to critically evaluate the cost effectiveness of robot-assisted surgeries for prostatectomies, cystectomies, and partial nephrectomies in the United States.

Australian patterns of prostate cancer care: Are they evolving?

Background

Approaches to prostate cancer (PCa) care have changed in recent years out of concern for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Despite these changes, many patients continue to undergo some form of curative treatment and with a growing perception among multidisciplinary clinicians that more aggressive treatments are being favored. This study examines patterns of PCa care in Australia, focusing on current rates of screening and aggressive interventions that consist of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND).

Methods

Health services data were used to assess Australian men undergoing PCa screening and treatment from 2001 to 2014. Age-specific rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening were calculated. Ratios of radical prostatectomy (RP) with PLND to RP without PLND, and HDR brachytherapy to low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy were determined by state jurisdictions.

Results

From 2008, the rate of PSA screening trended downward significantly with year for all age ranges (P < 0.02) except men aged ≥ 85 (P = 0.56). PLND rates for 2008–2014 were lower than rates for 2001–2007 across all states and territories. From 2008 to 2014, PLND was performed ≥ 2.7 times more frequently in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory than in other jurisdictions. Since 2007, brachytherapy practice across Australia has evolved towards a relatively low use of HDR brachytherapy (ratio of HDR to LDR brachytherapy < 0.5 for all jurisdictions except the Australian Capital Territory).

Conclusion

Rates of PLND and HDR brachytherapy for PCa have declined in Australia, providing evidence for the effect of stage migration due to widespread PSA screening. Currently, PSA screening rates remain high among older men, which may expose them to unnecessary investigations and treatment-related morbidity.

[Economic evaluation of the treatments of non-metastatic prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death in men in France. The development of treatment for prostate cancer is fast and sometimes relies on costly innovations. Medico-economic studies are however rare in this area. This literature review aims to summarize available medico-economic data on the initial management of localized prostate cancer and discuss the quality and usability of existing economic studies on the subject.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Literature review was done using PubMed and Cochrane databases. Studies and articles were selected based on several criteria: population with initial treatment for localized prostate cancer (without metastasis), comparative studies with surgery as control treatment, studies in countries members of the OECD, articles in English or French published between 2004 and 2014.

RESULTS

The surgical robot, one of the newest innovations, is more expensive than conventional open surgery or no robotic laparoscopy, even if it is associated with a reduction of the original period of stay. Radiation therapy seems more expensive than surgery as initial therapy of localized prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions remain limited because of the rarity of reliable health economic studies on the subject.

Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system

OBJECTIVES

To compare patterns of care and peri-operative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with other surgical approaches, and to create an economic model to assess the viability of RARP in the public case-mix funding system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all radical prostatectomies (RPs) performed for localized prostate cancer in Victoria, Australia, from the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset, a large administrative database that records all hospital inpatient episodes in Victoria. The first database, covering the period from July 2010 to April 2013 (n = 5 130), was used to compare length of hospital stay (LOS) and blood transfusion rates between surgical approaches. This was subsequently integrated into an economic model. A second database (n = 5 581) was extracted to cover the period between July 2010 and June 2013, three full financial years, to depict patterns of care and make future predictions for the 2014-2015 financial year, and to perform a hospital volume analysis. We then created an economic model to evaluate the incremental cost of RARP vs open RP (ORP) and laparoscopic RP (LRP), incorporating the cost-offset from differences in LOS and blood transfusion rate. The economic model constructs estimates of the diagnosis-related group (DRG) costs of ORP and LRP, adds the gross cost of the surgical robot (capital, consumables, maintenance and repairs), and manipulates these DRG costs to obtain a DRG cost per day, which can be used to estimate the cost-offset associated with RARP in comparison with ORP and LRP. Economic modelling was performed around a base-case scenario, assuming a 7-year robot lifespan and 124 RARPs performed per financial year. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed for the four-arm da Vinci SHD, Si and Si dual surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical Ltd, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

RESULTS

We identified 5 581 patients who underwent RP in 20 hospitals in Victoria with an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgical approach in the public and private sector. The majority of RPs (4 233, 75.8%), in Victoria were performed in the private sector, with an overall 11.5% decrease in the total number of RPs performed over the 3-year study period. In the most recent financial year, 820 (47%), 765 (44%) and 173 patients (10%) underwent RARP, ORP and LRP, respectively. In the same timeframe, RARP accounted for 26 and 53% of all RPs in the public and private sector, respectively. Public hospitals in Victoria perform a median number of 14 RPs per year and 40% of hospitals perform <10 RPs per year. In the public system, RARP was associated with a mean (±sd) LOS of 1.4 (±1.3) days compared with 3.6 (±2.7) days for LRP and 4.8 (±3.5) days for ORP (P < 0.001). The mean blood transfusion rates were 0, 6 and 15% for RARP, LRP and ORP, respectively (P < 0.001). The incremental cost per RARP case compared with ORP and LRP was A$442 and A$2 092, respectively, for the da Vinci S model, A$1 933 and A$3 583, respectively, for the da Vinci Si model and A$3 548 and A$5 198, respectively for the da Vinci Si dual. RARP can become cost-equivalent with ORP where ~140 cases per year are performed in the base-case scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the period studied, RARP has become the dominant approach to RP, with significantly shorter LOS and lower blood transfusion rate. This translates to a significant cost-offset, which is further enhanced by increasing the case volume, extending the lifespan of the robot and reductions in the cost of consumables and capital.

da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs

PURPOSE

To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany.

METHODS

Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study.

RESULTS

Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676).

CONCLUSIONS

The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.

Regional Cost Variations of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Compared With Open Radical Prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the cost differences between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in various census regions of the United States because RARP has been reported to be more expensive than ORP with significant regional cost variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) cost across the United States.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with prostate cancer who underwent RARP or ORP from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2009 to 2011. Hospital costs were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and multivariable linear regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

From the NIS database, 24,636 RARP and 13,590 ORP procedures were identified and evaluated. The lowest cost overall was in the South; the highest cost RARP was in the West and for ORP in the Northeast. In multivariable analysis, adjusted according to patient and hospital characteristics, RARP was 43.3% more costly in the Midwest, 37.2% more costly in the South, and 39.1% more costly in the West (P < .0001 for all). In contrast, the cost for RARP in the Northeast was 12.8% less than for ORP (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Cost for RP significantly varies within the nation and in most regions it is significantly greater for RARP than for ORP. ORP in the Northeast is more costly than RARP. Further research is needed to delineate the reason for these differences and to optimize the cost of RP.