Table_1_A Cost-Effectiveness and Quality of Life Analysis of Different Approaches to the Management and Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer.DOCX
Datasets usually provide raw data for analysis. This raw data often comes in spreadsheet form, but can be any collection of data, on which analysis can be performed.
The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy (PR), and external-beam radiotherapy with neoadjuvant hormone therapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer. Microsimulations of radical prostatectomy, 3D-conformal radiotherapy, or active monitoring were performed using Medicare reimbursement schedules and clinical trial results for a target population of men aged 50–69 years with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer (T1-T2, NX, M0) over a time horizon of 10 years. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were assessed and sensitivity analyses performed. Monte Carlo simulations revealed that the mean cost for AM, PR, and RT were $15,654, $18,791, and $30,378, respectively, and QALYs were 6.96, 7.44, and 7.9 years, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $6,548 for PR over AM and $68,339 for RT over PR. Results were sensitive to the number of years of follow-up and procedure cost. With relaxed assumptions for AM, the ICER of PR and RT met the societal willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY. Compared with AM, PR was highly cost-effective. RT and PR for localized prostate cancer can be cost-effective, but RT must offer increased QALYs or decreased procedural costs to be cost-effective compared to PR. Newer and cheaper radiotherapy strategies like stereotactic body radiotherapy may play a crucial role in future early prostate cancer management.
Read the peer-reviewed publication