Original Research18 June 2013
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Author, Article and Disclosure Information

    Chinese translation

    Background:

    Observation is underutilized among men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer.

    Objective:

    To assess the costs and benefits of observation versus initial treatment.

    Design:

    Decision analysis simulating treatment or observation.

    Data Sources:

    Medicare schedules, published literature.

    Target Population:

    Men aged 65 and 75 years who had newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen level <10 µg/L, stage ≤T2a, Gleason score ≤3 + 3).

    Time Horizon:

    Lifetime.

    Perspective:

    Societal.

    Intervention:

    Treatment (brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, or radical prostatectomy) or observation (active surveillance [AS] or watchful waiting [WW]).

    Outcome Measures:

    Quality-adjusted life expectancy and costs.

    Results of Base-Case Analysis:

    Observation was more effective and less costly than initial treatment. Compared with AS, WW provided 2 additional months of quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.02 vs. 8.85 years) at a savings of $15 374 ($24 520 vs. $39 894) in men aged 65 years and 2 additional months (6.14 vs. 5.98 years) at a savings of $11 746 ($18 302 vs. $30 048) in men aged 75 years. Brachytherapy was the most effective and least expensive initial treatment.

    Results of Sensitivity Analysis:

    Treatment became more effective than observation when it led to more dramatic reductions in prostate cancer death (hazard ratio, 0.47 vs. WW and 0.64 vs. AS). Active surveillance became as effective as WW in men aged 65 years when the probability of progressing to treatment on AS decreased below 63% or when the quality of life with AS versus WW was 4% higher in men aged 65 years or 1% higher in men aged 75 years. Watchful waiting remained least expensive in all analyses.

    Limitation:

    Results depend on outcomes reported in the published literature, which is limited.

    Conclusion:

    Among these men, observation is more effective and costs less than initial treatment, and WW is most effective and least expensive under a wide range of clinical scenarios.

    Primary Funding Source:

    National Cancer Institute, U.S. Department of Defense, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

    References

    • 1. Andriole GL Crawford ED Grubb RL 3rd Buys SS Chia D Church TR et alPLCO Project TeamMortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med2009;360:1310-9. [PMID: 19297565] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Stattin P Holmberg E Johansson JE Holmberg L Adolfsson J Hugosson J National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of SwedenOutcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst2010;102:950-8. [PMID: 20562373] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Schröder FH Hugosson J Roobol MJ Tammela TL Ciatto S Nelen V et alERSPC InvestigatorsScreening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med2009;360:1320-8. [PMID: 19297566] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Lu-Yao GL Albertsen PC Moore DF Shih W Lin Y DiPaola RS et alOutcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA2009;302:1202-9. [PMID: 19755699] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Cooperberg MR Broering JM Kantoff PW Carroll PR Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol2007;178:S14-9. [PMID: 17644125] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Welch HG Black WC Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2010;102:605-13. [PMID: 20413742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. IMRT Final Appraisal—Full Report. 2007. Accessed at www.icer-review.org/index.php/imrt.html on 22 April 2013. Google Scholar
    • 8. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Active Surveillance and Radical Prostatectomy Final Appraisal. 2009. Accessed at www.icer-review.org/index.php/as-rp.html on 22 April 2013. Google Scholar
    • 9. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Final Appraisal Document: Brachytherapy and Proton Beam Therapy for Treatment of Clinically Localized, Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. 2009. Accessed at www.icer-review.org/index.php/bt-pbt.html on 22 April 2013. Google Scholar
    • 10. Penson DF Chan JM Urologic Diseases in America ProjectProstate cancer. J Urol2007;177:2020-9. [PMID: 17509282] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Shteynshlyuger A Andriole GL Cost-effectiveness of prostate specific antigen screening in the United States: extrapolating from the European study of screening for prostate cancer. J Urol2011;185:828-32. [PMID: 21239021] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Klotz L Zhang L Lam A Nam R Mamedov A Loblaw A Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2010;28:126-31. [PMID: 19917860] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Wilt TJ Brawer MK Jones KM Barry MJ Aronson WJ Fox S et alProstate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study GroupRadical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med2012;367:203-13. [PMID: 22808955] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. The ProtecT trial—Evaluating the effectiveness of treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer [clinical trial]. 2012. Accessed at www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN20141297 on 22 April 2013. Google Scholar
    • 15. Hayes JH Ollendorf DA Pearson SD Barry MJ Kantoff PW Stewart ST et alActive surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA2010;304:2373-80. [PMID: 21119084] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Wilson LS Tesoro R Elkin EP Sadetsky N Broering JM Latini DM et alCumulative cost pattern comparison of prostate cancer treatments. Cancer2007;109:518-27. [PMID: 17186528] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Keegan KA Dall'Era MA Durbin-Johnson B Evans CP Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer2012;118:3512-8. [PMID: 22180322] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Gold MR Siegel JE Russell LB Weinstein MC Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 1996:425. Google Scholar
    • 19. D'Amico AV Manola J Loffredo M Renshaw AA DellaCroce A Kantoff PW 6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs. radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA2004;292:821-7. [PMID: 15315996] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Horwitz EM Thames HD Kuban DA Levy LB Kupelian PA Martinez AA et alDefinitions of biochemical failure that best predict clinical failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation alone: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. J Urol2005;173:797-802. [PMID: 15711272] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Alibhai SM Naglie G Nam R Trachtenberg J Krahn MD Do older men benefit from curative therapy of localized prostate cancer? J Clin Oncol2003;21:3318-27. [PMID: 12947068] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22. Dall'Era MA Konety BR Cowan JE Shinohara K Stauf F Cooperberg MR et alActive surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer2008;112:2664-70. [PMID: 18433013] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Patel MI DeConcini DT Lopez-Corona E Ohori M Wheeler T Scardino PT An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol2004;171:1520-4. [PMID: 15017211] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Fleshner NE Lucia MS Egerdie B Aaron L Eure G Nandy I et alDutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: the REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet2012;379:1103-11. [PMID: 22277570] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. van den Bergh RC Vasarainen H van der Poel HG Vis-Maters JJ Rietbergen JB Pickles T et alShort-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre “Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance” study. BJU Int2010;105:956-62. [PMID: 19817747] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. van As NJ Norman AR Thomas K Khoo VS Thompson A Huddart RA et alPredicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol2008;54:1297-305. [PMID: 18342430] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27. Hardie C Parker C Norman A Eeles R Horwich A Huddart R et alEarly outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int2005;95:956-60. [PMID: 15839912] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 28. Carter HB Kettermann A Warlick C Metter EJ Landis P Walsh PC et alExpectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol2007;178:2359-64. [PMID: 17936806] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Stewart ST Lenert L Bhatnagar V Kaplan RM Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care2005;43:347-55. [PMID: 15778638] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 30. Dale W Basu A Elstein A Meltzer D Predicting utility ratings for joint health States from single health States in prostate cancer: empirical testing of 3 alternative theories. Med Decis Making2008;28:102-12. [PMID: 18057188] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index - Medical Care. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2013. Accessed at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu on 22 April 2013. Google Scholar
    • 32. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesHospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008. Google Scholar
    • 33. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Household Data - Table 3: Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by age, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and sex, quarterly averages, not seasonally adjusted. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2013. Accessed at www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpswktab3.htm on 22 April 2013. Google Scholar
    • 34. Dahabreh IJ Chung M Balk EM Yu WW Mathew P Lau J et alActive surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med2012;156:582-90. [PMID: 22351515] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Corcoran AT Peele PB Benoit RM Cost comparison between watchful waiting with active surveillance and active treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology2010;76:703-7. [PMID: 20381846] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Xia J Trock BJ Cooperberg MR Gulati R Zeliadt SB Gore JL et alProstate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res2012;18:5471-8. [PMID: 23008476] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Porten SP Whitson JM Cowan JE Cooperberg MR Shinohara K Perez N et alChanges in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol2011;29:2795-800. [PMID: 21632511] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 38. Sheridan TB Carter HB Wang W Landis PB Epstein JI Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol2008;179:901-4. [PMID: 18207195] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 39. Berglund RK Masterson TA Vora KC Eggener SE Eastham JA Guillonneau BD Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol2008;180:1964-7. [PMID: 18801515] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Groot Koerkamp B Hunink MG Stijnen T Hammitt JK Kuntz KM Weinstein MC Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making2007;27:101-11. [PMID: 17409361] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Stout NK Knudsen AB Kong CY McMahon PM Gazelle GS Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics2009;27:533-45. [PMID: 19663525] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Thomson PDR Red Book: Pharmacy's Fundamental Reference. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Reuters; 2008. Google Scholar
    • 43. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesClinical Laboratory & Physician Fee Schedule. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008. Google Scholar
    • 44. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesDurable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics/Orthotics & Supplies Fee Schedule. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008. Google Scholar
    • 45. Yabroff KR Davis WW Lamont EB Fahey A Topor M Brown ML et alPatient time costs associated with cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst2007;99:14-23. [PMID: 17202109] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 46. Djavan B Waldert M Zlotta A Dobronski P Seitz C Remzi M et alSafety and morbidity of first and repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies: results of a prospective European prostate cancer detection study. J Urol2001;166:856-60. [PMID: 11490233] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 47. Bacon CG Mittleman MA Kawachi I Giovannucci E Glasser DB Rimm EB Sexual function in men older than 50 years of age: results from the health professionals follow-up study. Ann Intern Med2003;139:161-8. [PMID: 12899583] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 48. Andersson SO Rashidkhani B Karlberg L Wolk A Johansson JE Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in men aged 45-79 years: a population-based study of 40 000 Swedish men. BJU Int2004;94:327-31. [PMID: 15291861] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar