Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population

[Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, perioperative management by French urologists in 2018]

INTRODUCTION

Prostatectomy (PT) is a common procedure performed by many urologists. In 2018, 20,207 prostatectomies were performed in France, and few studies evaluated the perioperative habits of urologists. As part of writing guidelines for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) we wished to evaluate practice of urologists in their hospital management of a prostatectomy.

MATERIEL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent by Survey Monkey in June and July 2018 to all urologists who are members of the French Association of Urology.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty seven urologists (14%) answered the questionnaire, 62% have private practice. The average number of operators per center performing PT was 4, with a median number of 70 interventions (0 to 486) per center in 2018. Open surgery is still gold standard (39.13%), followed by the robot-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic (34.78%) and standard laparoscopic (24.22%). Alimentation, like first stand-up, was re-established on the first post-operative day, and the average hospital stay was 4±2 nights. The removal of the bladder catheter was most often performed at home by nurse (49.06%), one week after surgery. Only 10.06% of urologists systematically perform a cystography before removal urinary catheter.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative management of prostatectomy in France is relatively homogeneous, between urologists. The length of hospital stay remains important and could be reduced by proposing an ERAS protocol as has been obtained for cystectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Cost of New Technologies in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review of Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy, Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy, and Proton Beam Therapy

CONTEXT

Some of the high costs of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and proton beam therapy may be offset by better outcomes or less resource use during the treatment episode.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature to identify the key economic trade-offs implicit in a particular treatment choice for prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically reviewed the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and protocol. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published between January 2001 and July 2016, which compared the treatment costs of RARP, IMRT, or proton beam therapy to the standard treatment. We identified 37, nine, and three studies, respectively.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

RARP is costlier than radical retropubic prostatectomy for hospitals and payers. However, RARP has the potential for a moderate cost advantage for payers and society over a longer time horizon when optimal cancer and quality-of-life outcomes are achieved. IMRT is more expensive from a payer's perspective compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, but also more cost effective when defined by an incremental cost effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year. Proton beam therapy is costlier than IMRT and its cost effectiveness remains unclear given the limited comparative data on outcomes. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the quality of evidence was low for RARP and IMRT, and very low for proton beam therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with new versus traditional technologies is costlier. However, given the low quality of evidence and the inconsistencies across studies, the precise difference in costs remains unclear. Attempts to estimate whether this increased cost is worth the expense are hampered by the uncertainty surrounding improvements in outcomes, such as cancer control and side effects of treatment. If the new technologies can consistently achieve better outcomes, then they may be cost effective.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We review the cost and cost effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and proton beam therapy in prostate cancer treatment. These technologies are costlier than their traditional counterparts. It remains unclear whether their use is associated with improved cure and reduced morbidity, and whether the increased cost is worth the expense.