Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

Analyzing the influence of expanding multispecialty adoption of robotic surgery on robotic urologic care A decade-long assessment of two Canadian academic hospitals

INTRODUCTION

Most robot-assisted surgery (RAS) systems in Canada are donor-funded, with constraints on implementation and access due to significant costs, among other factors. Herein, we evaluated the impact of the growing multispecialty use of RAS on urologic RAS access and outcomes in the past decade.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all RAS performed by different surgical specialties in two high-volume academic hospitals between 2010 and 2019 (prior to the COVID pandemic). The assessed outcomes included the effect of increased robot access over the years on annual robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) volumes, surgical waiting times (SWT), and pathologically positive surgical margins (PSM). Data were collected and analyzed from the robotic system and hospital databases.

RESULTS

In total, six specialties (urology, gynecology, general, cardiac, thoracic, and otorhinolaryngologic surgery) were included over the study period. RAS access by specialty doubled since 2010 (from three to six). The number of active robotic surgeons tripled from seven surgeons in 2010 to 20 surgeons in 2019. Moreover, there was a significant drop in average case volume, from a peak of 40 cases in 2014 to 25 cases in 2019 (p=0.02). RARP annual case volume followed a similar pattern, reaching a maximum of 166 cases in 2014, then declining to 137 cases in 2019. The mean SWT was substantially increased from 52 days in 2014 to 73 days in 2019; however, PSM rates were not affected by the reduction in surgical volumes (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last decade, RAS access by specialty has increased at two Canadian academic centers due to growing multispecialty use. As there was a fixed, single-robotic system at each of the hospital centers, there was a substantial reduction in the number of RAS performed per surgeon over time, as well as a gradual increase in the SWT. The current low number of available robots and unsustainable funding resources may hinder universal patient access to RAS.

A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors used Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed to conduct a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fully published economic articles in English were included. Methodology and reporting quality were assessed using standardized tools. Majority of studies (28/33) were on oncology procedures. Radical prostatectomy was the most reported procedure (16/33). Twenty-eight studies used quality-adjusted life years, and five used complication rates as outcomes. Nine used primary and 24 studies used secondary data. All studies used modeling. In 81% of studies (27/33), RAS was cost-effective or potentially cost-effective compared to comparator procedures, including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. Societal perspective, longer-term time-horizon, and larger volumes favored RAS. Cost-drivers were length of stay and equipment cost. From societal and payer perspectives, robotic-assisted surgery is a cost-effective strategy for thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Clinical trial registration This study is a systematic review with no intervention, not a clinical trial.

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: How Much Uncertainty Is in the Results?

Cost-effectiveness analyses of new cancer treatments in real-world settings (e.g., post-clinical trials) inform healthcare decision makers about their healthcare investments for patient populations. The results of these analyses are often, though not always, presented with statistical uncertainty. This paper identifies five ways to characterize statistical uncertainty: (1) a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); (2) a 95% CI for the incremental net benefit (INB); (3) an INB by willingness-to-pay (WTP) plot; (4) a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC); and (5) a cost-effectiveness scatterplot. It also explores their usage in 22 articles previously identified by a rapid review of real-world cost effectiveness of novel cancer treatments. Seventy-seven percent of these articles presented uncertainty results. The majority those papers (59%) used administrative data to inform their analyses while the remaining were conducted using models. Cost-effectiveness scatterplots were the most commonly used method (34.3%), with 40% indicating high levels of statistical uncertainty, suggesting the possibility of a qualitatively different result from the estimate given. Understanding the necessity for and the meaning of uncertainty in real-world cost-effectiveness analysis will strengthen knowledge translation efforts to improve patient outcomes in an efficient manner.

Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CE Analysis) provides evidence about the incremental gains in patient outcomes costs from new treatments and interventions in cancer care. The utilization of "real-world" data allows these analyses to better reflect differences in costs and effects for actual patient populations with comorbidities and a range of ages as opposed to randomized controlled trials, which use a restricted population. This rapid review was done through PubMed and Google Scholar in July 2022. Relevant articles were summarized and data extracted to summarize changes in costs (in 2022 CAD) and effectiveness in cancer care once funded by the Canadian government payer system. We conducted statistical analyses to examine the differences between means and medians of costs, effects, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Twenty-two studies were selected for review. Of those, the majority performed a CE Analysis on cancer drugs. Real-world cancer drug studies had significantly higher costs and effects than non-drug therapies. Studies that utilized a model to project longer time-horizons saw significantly smaller ICER values for the treatments they examined. Further, differences in drug costs increased over time. This review highlights the importance of performing real-world CE Analysis on cancer treatments to better understand their costs and impacts on a general patient population.

Single-site multiport vs. conventional multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity score matching comparative study

Objective

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a dynamically evolving technique with its new evolution of single-site RARP. Here we sought to describe our extraperitoneal technique, named the single-site multiport RARP (ssmpRARP) using the da Vinci Si® platform and compare it with the transperitoneal conventional multiport RARP (cmpRARP).

Materials and Methods

Data were retrospectively collected for patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer from June 2020 to January 2022 in a single center. Propensity score matching was performed based on age, prostate size, body mass index, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy usage, prostate-specific antigen levels, and clinical T stage. The differences between the matched two groups were investigated.

Results

Of the patients, 20 underwent ssmpRARP and 42 underwent cmpRARP during the period. After matching, 18 patients from each group were selected. Median follow-up was 7.8 months (2–12 months) for the ssmpRARP group, and 15.0 months (3–26 months) for cmpRARP. The demographic features between the two groups were comparable. The median total operative time, estimated blood loss, pathologic data, early follow-up outcomes, and hospitalization stays and costs were similar between the two groups. The ssmpRARP group tended to return to their bowel activities earlier (44.78 ± 10.83 h vs. 54.89 ± 12.97 h, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in complication rates.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility and safety of performing extraperitoneal ssmpRARP using the da Vinci Si® robotic platform. Our technique showed comparable short-term outcomes with the transperitoneal cmpRARP. Prospective trials and long-term follow-up are necessary to confirm these results.

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021246811.

The Economic Burden of Localized Prostate Cancer and Insights Derived from Cost-Effectiveness Studies of the Different Treatments

Prostate cancer has huge health and societal impacts, and there is no clear consensus on the most effective and efficient treatment strategy for this disease, particularly for localized prostate cancer. We have reviewed the scientific literature describing the economic burden and cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer in OECD countries. We initially identified 315 articles, studying 13 of them in depth (those that met the inclusion criteria), comparing the social perspectives of cost, time period, geographical area, and severity. The economic burden arising from prostate cancer due to losses in productivity and increased caregiver load is noticeable, but clinical decision-making is carried out with more subjective variability than would be advisable. The direct cost of the intervention was the main driver for the treatment of less severe cases of prostate cancer, whereas for more severe cases, the most important determinant was the loss in productivity. Newer, more affordable radiotherapy strategies may play a crucial role in the future treatment of early prostate cancer. The interpretation of our results depends on conducting thorough sensitivity analyses. This approach may help better understand parameter uncertainty and the methodological choices discussed in health economics studies. Future results of ongoing clinical trials that are considering genetic characteristics in assessing treatment response of patients with localized prostate cancer may shed new light on important clinical and pharmacoeconomic decisions.

More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.

METHODS

Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear." Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Economic studies in medical research: 'Importance, targets, outcome evaluation'

Economic studies in healthcare are used to measure the cost and effectiveness of an intervention and are valuable in determining how healthcare resources can be distributed to achieve the greatest overall gain. Most economic studies in healthcare are cost-benefit analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), or cost-utility analyses (CUAs). CEAs and CUAs compare alternative interventions based on cost and effectiveness but are influenced by different methodologies and assumptions employed by researchers. The perspective from which an economic study is evaluated (the patient, the provider, the payor, or the society) should be carefully considered. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) describes the difference between two interventions in cost and health outcomes and can be expressed in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). A threshold ICER <$50,000/QALY is often used to determine whether an intervention is cost-effective, in conjunction with patient factors, healthcare system factors, and opportunity cost associated with the intervention. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluating Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement provides guidelines for reporting healthcare economic studies. Key elements to be reported include the study design, target population and subgroups, time horizon, health outcomes, perspectives, comparison group, and sensitivity analyses performed. Economic studies are particularly important in orthopedics given the prevalence of musculoskeletal disease, high upfront costs, and potential quality of life improvements associated with orthopedic surgical procedures. An understanding of economic evaluations in healthcare is important to critically review the available literature.

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK

IMPORTANCE

The cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy remains a subject of debate. Emergence of recent critical clinical data and changes in surgical equipment costs due to their shared use by different clinical specialties necessitate an updated cost-effectiveness analysis in a centralized, largely government-funded health care system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRP) using contemporary data on clinical outcomes, costs, and surgical volumes in the UK.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic analysis used a Markov model developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer. The model was constructed from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model simulated 65-year-old men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and were followed up for a 10-year period. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, LRP, and ORP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (direct medical costs and costs outside the NHS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

Compared with LRP, RARP cost £1785 (US $2350) less and had 0.24 more QALYs gained; thus, RARP was a dominant option compared with LRP. Compared with ORP, RARP had 0.12 more QALYs gained but cost £526 (US $693) more during the 10-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of £4293 (US $5653)/QALY. Because the ICER was below the £30 000 (US $39 503) willingness-to-pay threshold, RARP was more cost-effective than ORP in the UK. The most sensitive variable influencing the cost-effectiveness of RARP was the lower risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Scenario analysis indicated RARP would remain more cost-effective than ORP as long as the BCR hazard ratios comparing RARP vs ORP were less than 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that in the UK, RARP has an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus is likely a cost-effective surgical treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer compared with ORP and LRP. The results were mainly driven by the lower risk of BCR for RARP. These findings may differ in other health care settings where different thresholds and costs may apply.

Robotic RPLND for stage IIA/B nonseminoma: the Princess Margaret Experience

PURPOSE

Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is a treatment option for men in a primary and post-chemotherapy setting. The aim of this review was to explore the published data looking at feasibility, safety and outcomes of robotic RPLND for CSI/II NSGCT but we will in particular highlight how we have approached adoption of robotic RPLND at the Princess Margaret.

METHODS

A review and summary of the published data to date was performed regarding the role of robotic RPLND for stage IIA/B nonseminoma.

RESULTS

Published series of robotic RPLND to date have proven feasibility and safety in experienced centres. Less blood loss, shorter length of stay and decreased morbidity are promising findings. Our data from Princess Margaret strengthen the argument of oncologic efficacy as we operated only on patients with known retroperitoneal disease (Stage at RPLND was IIA (n = 15, 55.6%), IIB (n = 9, 33.3%), IIC (n = 1, 3.7%) and III (n = 2, 7.4%)), did not use adjuvant chemotherapy and found a relapse rate (11%) similar to open RPLND.

CONCLUSIONS

The debate is ongoing regarding the role of robotic RPLND- the excellent oncological outcomes achieved by an open RPLND are the minimum starting point for robotic RPLND. Until such time that robotic RPLND is proven to be gold standard it should be performed in experienced centres by high volume RPLND surgeons and in the setting of a protocol.

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.

Laparoscopic surgery experience does not influence oncological and functional results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Surgery is one of the treatment alternatives for prostate cancer, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become the new trend in the past decade. There is no consensus yet for surgeons who will perform RALP whether they need to be trained or experienced in laparoscopy. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the surgeon's laparoscopy experience in the perioperative and postoperative results of RALP patients.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Patients who underwent RALP were retrospectively screened. The first 20 cases done by surgeons in both groups and 40 cases in total were included in the study. Surgeons with laparoscopy training were designated as group 1, and surgeons without laparoscopy training were designated as group 2. Patient's age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, prostate biopsy pathology, radical prostatectomy pathology, surgical margin positivity, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicle invasion status, blood transfusion rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and 1-year follow-up potency and urinary incontinence rates were compared.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two groups in terms of age, preoperative PSA, preoperative biopsy results, blood transfusion rates, operation times, and the length of hospital stay of the patients. When the postoperative oncological and functional results of the patients were examined, there was no difference between the two groups in the prostatectomy pathology (p = 0.895), extracapsular extension (pT3a) (p = 0.519), positive surgical margin (pSM) (p = 0.723), and seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) (p = 0.756). Potency and urinary incontinence rates were similar in both groups at the end of one year follow-up (p = 0.327, 0.500 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our study, it is clearly seen that regardless of the surgeon's experience of laparoscopy, it can be safely preferred when looking at the oncological and functional results of RALP.