Robot-Assisted Surgery vs Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis.
cost-utility analyses
health economic analysis
prostate cancer
quality of life
robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
12
12
2021
accepted:
22
04
2022
entrez:
10
6
2022
pubmed:
11
6
2022
medline:
11
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prostate cancer is the most common men cancer in France. Continuous progress in oncology led to develop robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomies (rRP) and robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy (rSBRT). The present study aims at comparing economic and clinical impacts of prostate cancer treatments performed either with rSBRT or rRP in France. A Markov model using TreeAge Pro software was chosen to calculate annual costs; utilities and transition probabilities of localized prostate cancer treatments. Patients were eligible for radiotherapy or surgery and the therapeutic decision was a robot-assisted intervention. Over a 10-year period, rSBRT yielded a significantly higher number of quality-adjusted life years than rRP (8.37 vs 6.85). In France, rSBRT seemed more expensive than rRP (€19,475 vs €18,968, respectively). From a societal perspective, rRP was more cost-saving (incremental cost effectiveness ratio = €332/QALY). The model was sensitive to variations of costs of the initial and recurrence state in one-way sensitivity analyses. Robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy seems more cost-effective than Radical Prostatectomy in terms of QALY despite the slightly higher initial cost due to the use of radiotherapy. It would be interesting to conduct comparative quality of life studies in France over longer periods of time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35686090
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.834023
pmc: PMC9172203
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
834023Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Farah, Magne, Martelli, Sotton, Zerbib, Borget, Scher, Guetta, Chargari, Bauduceau and Toledano.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2004 Jan;2(1):6-27
pubmed: 19777692
Urology. 2005 Nov;66(5 Suppl):105-7
pubmed: 16194715
Eur Urol. 2013 Sep;64(3):361-9
pubmed: 23498062
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 04;9(12):e113432
pubmed: 25474006
Lancet. 2016 Sep 10;388(10049):1057-1066
pubmed: 27474375
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50
pubmed: 23538175
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 Nov - Dec;8(6):354-360
pubmed: 30322661
Prog Urol. 2015 Nov;25(15):1108-15
pubmed: 26519969
Am J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jun;37(3):215-21
pubmed: 23275277
Front Oncol. 2012 Aug 20;2:81
pubmed: 22934286
Eur Urol. 2018 Dec;74(6):816-824
pubmed: 30143383
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Feb;15(1):171-8
pubmed: 24750007
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):660-70
pubmed: 25308968
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):391-403
pubmed: 27325331
BMC Urol. 2010 Feb 01;10:1
pubmed: 20122161
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1425-1437
pubmed: 27626365
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Nov;20(11):1531-1543
pubmed: 31540791
Adv Ther. 2015 Feb;32(2):138-47
pubmed: 25716549
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2017 Jul 7;17(11):1-172
pubmed: 28744334
Cureus. 2017 Sep 9;9(9):e1668
pubmed: 29152425
Eur J Health Econ. 2011 Aug;12(4):363-71
pubmed: 20549536