Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Strategies for Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer(Figure presented.)

Niranjan J Sathianathen, Badrinath R Konety, Fernando Alarid-Escudero, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Damien M. Bolton, Karen M Kuntz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Active surveillance (AS) has become the recommended management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the optimal follow-up schedule in terms of the tests to perform and their frequency. Objective: To assess the costs and benefits of different AS follow-up strategies compared to watchful waiting (WW) or immediate treatment. Design, setting, and participants: A state-transition Markov model was developed to simulate the natural history (ie, no testing or intervention) of prostate cancer for a hypothetical cohort of 50-yr-old men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Following diagnosis, men were hypothetically managed with immediate treatment, watchful waiting, or one of several AS strategies. AS follow-up was performed either with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which was scheduled annually, biennially, every 3 yrs, according to the PRIAS protocol (yrs 1, 4, 7, and 10, and then every 5 yr) or every 5 yr. Diagnosis of higher-grade or -stage disease while on AS resulted in curative treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted lifetime medical costs (2017 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations: Compared to WW, MRI-based surveillance performed every 5 yr improved quality-adjusted survival by 4.47 quality-adjusted months and represented high-value health care at the Medicare reimbursement rate using standard cost-effectiveness metrics. Biopsy-based strategies were less effective and less costly than the corresponding MRI-based strategies for each testing interval. MRI-based surveillance at more frequent intervals had ICERs greater than $800 000 per QALY and would not be considered cost-effective according to standard metrics. Our results were sensitive to the diagnostic accuracy and costs of both biopsy modes in detecting clinically significant cancer. Conclusions: Incorporation of MRI into surveillance protocols at Medicare reimbursement rates and decreasing the intensity of repeat testing may be cost-effective options for men opting for conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer. Patient summary: Our study modeled outcomes for men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing watchful waiting, immediate treatment, or active surveillance with different follow-up schedules. We found that conservative management of low-risk disease optimizes health outcomes and costs. Furthermore, we showed that decreasing the intensity of active surveillance follow-up and incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into surveillance protocols can be cost-effective, depending on the MRI costs. Active surveillance outcomes and costs can be optimized by decreasing the intensity of follow-up testing and potentially using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging—if the cost is similar to the Medicare reimbursement rate—to determine which patients require biopsy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)910-917
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume75
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Prostatic Neoplasms
Watchful Waiting
Costs and Cost Analysis
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Medicare
Biopsy
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Appointments and Schedules
Therapeutics
Natural History
Health Care Costs
Uncertainty
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Delivery of Health Care
Survival
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Conservative management
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Decision analysis
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Prostate cancer

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Strategies for Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer(Figure presented.). / Sathianathen, Niranjan J; Konety, Badrinath R; Alarid-Escudero, Fernando; Lawrentschuk, Nathan; Bolton, Damien M.; Kuntz, Karen M.

In: European Urology, Vol. 75, No. 6, 01.06.2019, p. 910-917.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sathianathen, Niranjan J ; Konety, Badrinath R ; Alarid-Escudero, Fernando ; Lawrentschuk, Nathan ; Bolton, Damien M. ; Kuntz, Karen M. / Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Strategies for Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer(Figure presented.). In: European Urology. 2019 ; Vol. 75, No. 6. pp. 910-917.
@article{32c75be1e26f4b46bc96548353f1c65e,
title = "Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Strategies for Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer(Figure presented.)",
abstract = "Background: Active surveillance (AS) has become the recommended management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the optimal follow-up schedule in terms of the tests to perform and their frequency. Objective: To assess the costs and benefits of different AS follow-up strategies compared to watchful waiting (WW) or immediate treatment. Design, setting, and participants: A state-transition Markov model was developed to simulate the natural history (ie, no testing or intervention) of prostate cancer for a hypothetical cohort of 50-yr-old men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Following diagnosis, men were hypothetically managed with immediate treatment, watchful waiting, or one of several AS strategies. AS follow-up was performed either with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which was scheduled annually, biennially, every 3 yrs, according to the PRIAS protocol (yrs 1, 4, 7, and 10, and then every 5 yr) or every 5 yr. Diagnosis of higher-grade or -stage disease while on AS resulted in curative treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted lifetime medical costs (2017 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations: Compared to WW, MRI-based surveillance performed every 5 yr improved quality-adjusted survival by 4.47 quality-adjusted months and represented high-value health care at the Medicare reimbursement rate using standard cost-effectiveness metrics. Biopsy-based strategies were less effective and less costly than the corresponding MRI-based strategies for each testing interval. MRI-based surveillance at more frequent intervals had ICERs greater than $800 000 per QALY and would not be considered cost-effective according to standard metrics. Our results were sensitive to the diagnostic accuracy and costs of both biopsy modes in detecting clinically significant cancer. Conclusions: Incorporation of MRI into surveillance protocols at Medicare reimbursement rates and decreasing the intensity of repeat testing may be cost-effective options for men opting for conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer. Patient summary: Our study modeled outcomes for men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing watchful waiting, immediate treatment, or active surveillance with different follow-up schedules. We found that conservative management of low-risk disease optimizes health outcomes and costs. Furthermore, we showed that decreasing the intensity of active surveillance follow-up and incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into surveillance protocols can be cost-effective, depending on the MRI costs. Active surveillance outcomes and costs can be optimized by decreasing the intensity of follow-up testing and potentially using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging—if the cost is similar to the Medicare reimbursement rate—to determine which patients require biopsy.",
keywords = "Conservative management, Cost-effectiveness, Decision analysis, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate cancer",
author = "Sathianathen, {Niranjan J} and Konety, {Badrinath R} and Fernando Alarid-Escudero and Nathan Lawrentschuk and Bolton, {Damien M.} and Kuntz, {Karen M}",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.055",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "75",
pages = "910--917",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Strategies for Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer(Figure presented.)

AU - Sathianathen, Niranjan J

AU - Konety, Badrinath R

AU - Alarid-Escudero, Fernando

AU - Lawrentschuk, Nathan

AU - Bolton, Damien M.

AU - Kuntz, Karen M

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Background: Active surveillance (AS) has become the recommended management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the optimal follow-up schedule in terms of the tests to perform and their frequency. Objective: To assess the costs and benefits of different AS follow-up strategies compared to watchful waiting (WW) or immediate treatment. Design, setting, and participants: A state-transition Markov model was developed to simulate the natural history (ie, no testing or intervention) of prostate cancer for a hypothetical cohort of 50-yr-old men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Following diagnosis, men were hypothetically managed with immediate treatment, watchful waiting, or one of several AS strategies. AS follow-up was performed either with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which was scheduled annually, biennially, every 3 yrs, according to the PRIAS protocol (yrs 1, 4, 7, and 10, and then every 5 yr) or every 5 yr. Diagnosis of higher-grade or -stage disease while on AS resulted in curative treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted lifetime medical costs (2017 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations: Compared to WW, MRI-based surveillance performed every 5 yr improved quality-adjusted survival by 4.47 quality-adjusted months and represented high-value health care at the Medicare reimbursement rate using standard cost-effectiveness metrics. Biopsy-based strategies were less effective and less costly than the corresponding MRI-based strategies for each testing interval. MRI-based surveillance at more frequent intervals had ICERs greater than $800 000 per QALY and would not be considered cost-effective according to standard metrics. Our results were sensitive to the diagnostic accuracy and costs of both biopsy modes in detecting clinically significant cancer. Conclusions: Incorporation of MRI into surveillance protocols at Medicare reimbursement rates and decreasing the intensity of repeat testing may be cost-effective options for men opting for conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer. Patient summary: Our study modeled outcomes for men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing watchful waiting, immediate treatment, or active surveillance with different follow-up schedules. We found that conservative management of low-risk disease optimizes health outcomes and costs. Furthermore, we showed that decreasing the intensity of active surveillance follow-up and incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into surveillance protocols can be cost-effective, depending on the MRI costs. Active surveillance outcomes and costs can be optimized by decreasing the intensity of follow-up testing and potentially using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging—if the cost is similar to the Medicare reimbursement rate—to determine which patients require biopsy.

AB - Background: Active surveillance (AS) has become the recommended management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the optimal follow-up schedule in terms of the tests to perform and their frequency. Objective: To assess the costs and benefits of different AS follow-up strategies compared to watchful waiting (WW) or immediate treatment. Design, setting, and participants: A state-transition Markov model was developed to simulate the natural history (ie, no testing or intervention) of prostate cancer for a hypothetical cohort of 50-yr-old men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Following diagnosis, men were hypothetically managed with immediate treatment, watchful waiting, or one of several AS strategies. AS follow-up was performed either with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which was scheduled annually, biennially, every 3 yrs, according to the PRIAS protocol (yrs 1, 4, 7, and 10, and then every 5 yr) or every 5 yr. Diagnosis of higher-grade or -stage disease while on AS resulted in curative treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted lifetime medical costs (2017 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations: Compared to WW, MRI-based surveillance performed every 5 yr improved quality-adjusted survival by 4.47 quality-adjusted months and represented high-value health care at the Medicare reimbursement rate using standard cost-effectiveness metrics. Biopsy-based strategies were less effective and less costly than the corresponding MRI-based strategies for each testing interval. MRI-based surveillance at more frequent intervals had ICERs greater than $800 000 per QALY and would not be considered cost-effective according to standard metrics. Our results were sensitive to the diagnostic accuracy and costs of both biopsy modes in detecting clinically significant cancer. Conclusions: Incorporation of MRI into surveillance protocols at Medicare reimbursement rates and decreasing the intensity of repeat testing may be cost-effective options for men opting for conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer. Patient summary: Our study modeled outcomes for men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing watchful waiting, immediate treatment, or active surveillance with different follow-up schedules. We found that conservative management of low-risk disease optimizes health outcomes and costs. Furthermore, we showed that decreasing the intensity of active surveillance follow-up and incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) into surveillance protocols can be cost-effective, depending on the MRI costs. Active surveillance outcomes and costs can be optimized by decreasing the intensity of follow-up testing and potentially using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging—if the cost is similar to the Medicare reimbursement rate—to determine which patients require biopsy.

KW - Conservative management

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - Decision analysis

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056284529&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056284529&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.055

DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.055

M3 - Article

VL - 75

SP - 910

EP - 917

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 6

ER -