Economic evaluation of treatments for patients with localized prostate cancer

L'objectiu global d'aquesta tesi va ser avaluar l'eficiència, des de la perspectiva dels sistemes de salut, dels tractaments més establerts per als pacients diagnosticats amb càncer de pròstata localitzat. El "Estudi multicèntric Espanyol de càncer de pròstata localitzat" és un estudi observacional, prospectiu amb pacients reclutats consecutivament en 10 centres a Espanya entre 2003 i 2005, tractats amb prostatectomia radical retropúbica, braquiteràpia prostàtica o radioteràpia conformacional externa 3D, i seguits intensivament durant els primers dotze mesos i anualment a partir de llavors, fins a 10 anys post-tractament. El que destaca entre els resultats és que, tot i lleugeres diferències entre els costos dels tractaments, qualssevol de les alternatives podria considerar-se econòmicament atractiva per als pacients amb càncer de pròstata localitzat de risc baix i intermedi.The global aim of this thesis was to assess the efficiency, from the health systems perspective, of the most established treatments for patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. The “Spanish Multicentric Study of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer” is an observational, prospective study that consecutively recruited patients in 10 centers in Spain between 2003 and 2005, treated either with radical prostatectomy, prostate brachytherapy or external 3D conformal radiotherapy, and followed intensively during the first twelve months and yearly thereafter until the 10-year post-treatment point. What becomes outstanding among the results is that, despite slight differences between treatments costs, each of the alternatives could be considered economically attractive for patients with localized prostate cancer at low and intermediate risk

Comparación de costes de tres tratamientos del cáncer de próstata localizado en España: prostatectomía radical, braquiterapia prostática y radioterapia conformacional externa 3D Cost comparison of three treatments for localized prostate cancer in Spain: radical prostatectomy, prostate brachytherapy and external 3D conformal radiotherapy

Objetivo: Comparar los costes de los tratamientos más establecidos para el cáncer de próstata localizado según grupos de riesgo, edad y comorbilidad, desde la perspectiva del proveedor asistencial. Métodos: Comparación de costes en pacientes reclutados consecutivamente entre 2003 y 2005 en una unidad funcional de tratamiento del cáncer de próstata. La utilización de servicios hasta 6 meses después del inicio del tratamiento se obtuvo de las bases de datos hospitalarias, y los costes directos se estimaron mediante cálculo microcoste. La información sobre las características clínicas de los pacientes y los tratamientos recogió prospectivamente. Los costes se compararon mediante tests no paramétricos de comparación de medianas (Kruskall-Wallis) y un modelo semilogarítmico de regresión múltiple. Resultados: La diferencia de costes fue estadísticamente significativa: medianas de 3229.10 &euro;, 5369.00 &euro; y 6265.60 &euro; para los pacientes tratados con radioterapia conformacional externa 3D, braquiterapia, y prostatectomía radical retropública, respectivamente (pObjective: To compare the initial costs of the three most established treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer according to risk, age and comorbidity groups, from the healthcare provider's perspective. Methods: We carried out a cost comparison study in a sample of patients consecutively recruited between 2003 and 2005 from a functional unit for prostate cancer treatment in Catalonia (Spain). The use of services up to 6 months after the treatment start date was obtained from hospital databases and direct costs were estimated by micro-cost calculation. Information on the clinical characteristics of patients and treatments was collected prospectively. Costs were compared by using nonparametric tests comparing medians (Kruskall-Wallis) and a semi-logarithmic multiple regression model. Results: Among the 398 patients included, the cost difference among treatments was statistically significant: medians were &euro;3,229.10, &euro;5,369.00 and &euro;6,265.60, respectively, for the groups of patients treated with external 3D conformal radiotherapy, brachytherapy and radical retropublic prostatectomy, (p<0.001). In the multivariate analysis (adjusted R²=0.8), the average costs of brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were significantly lower than that of prostatectomy (coefficient -0.212 and -0.729, respectively). Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy proved to be the most expensive treatment option. Overall, the estimated costs in our study were lower than those published elsewhere. Most of the costs were explained by the therapeutic option and neither comorbidity nor risk groups showed an effect on total costs independent of treatment

Economic evaluation of treatments for patients with localized prostate cancer in Europe: a systematic review

Background: Our objective was to assess the efficiency of treatments in patients with localized prostate cancer, by synthesizing available evidence from European economic evaluations through systematic review. Methods: Articles published 2000–2015 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED (Prospero protocol CRD42015022063). Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. We included European economic evaluations or cost comparison studies, of any modality of surgery or radiotherapy treatments, regardless the comparator/s. Drummond’s Checklist was used for quality assessment./nResults: After reviewing 8,789 titles, 13 European eligible studies were included: eight cost-utility, two cost-effectiveness, one cost-minimization, and two cost-comparison analyses. Of them, five compared interventions with expectant management, four contrasted robotic with non robotic-assisted surgery, three assessed new modalities of radiotherapy, and three compared radical prostatectomy with brachytherapy. All but two studies scored ≥8 in the quality checklist. Considering scenario and comparator, three interventions were qualified as dominant strategies (active surveillance, robotic-assisted surgery and IMRT), and six were cost-effective (radical prostatectomy, robotic-assisted surgery, IMRT, proton therapy, brachytherapy, and 3DCRT). However, QALY gains in most of them were small. For interventions considered as dominant strategies, QALY gain was 0.013 for active surveillance over radical prostatectomy; and 0.007 for robotic-assisted over non-robotic techniques. The highest QALY gains were 0.57–0.86 for radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting, and 0.72 for brachytherapy vs conventional radiotherapy. Conclusions: Currently, relevant treatment alternatives for localized prostate cancer are scarcely evaluated in Europe. Very limited available evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy over watchful waiting, brachytherapy over radical prostatectomy, and new treatment modalities over traditional procedures. Relevant disparities were detected among studies, mainly based on effectiveness. These apparently contradictory results may be reflecting the difficulty of interpreting small differences between treatments regarding QALY gains.Financial support for this study was provided by Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER: Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FIS PI08/90090 and PI13/00412); Agència d’Informació, Avaluació i Qualitat en Salut (AIAQS), 436/05/2008; Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PTAT2011-04891); and DIUE of Generalitat de Catalunya (2014 SGR 748). The funding agreements ensure the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, and writing and publishing the report