Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial.

Sharma V, Wymer KM, Borah BJ, Barocas DA, Thompson RH, Karnes RJ, Boorjian SA. Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial. The Journal of urology. 2019 Nov 1; 202(5):964-972.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Despite increasing emphasis on value based care, to our knowledge the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer management options has not been compared using prospective clinical trial data. The ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial demonstrated no difference in survival in patients randomized to active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We compared cost-effectiveness among the arms of ProtecT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy based on ProtecT outcomes, specifically 6-year quality of life data and 10-year oncologic data. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement while utility values were assigned using the literature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six years after randomization the mean costs per patient were $12,143 for active surveillance, $17,781 for radical prostatectomy and $29,238 for external beam radiotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to active surveillance was $127,752/QALY for radical prostatectomy and $381,894/QALY for external beam radiotherapy. Ten years after randomization radical prostatectomy ($5,627/QALY) and external beam radiotherapy ($78,291/QALY) were more cost-effective than active surveillance. The model was sensitive to the metastasis rate on active surveillance with a threshold of 2.4% at 10 years, below which active surveillance was more cost-effective than radical prostatectomy. On multivariable sensitivity analysis at 10 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY the most cost-effective strategy was radical prostatectomy in 45% of model microsimulations, external beam radiotherapy in 30% and active surveillance in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Although active surveillance represents a cost-effective strategy to manage localized prostate cancer during the initial several years after diagnosis, the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment emerges with extended followup.