Cost Comparison Between Watchful Waiting With Active Surveillance and Active Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer REPLY

Department of Health Policy & Management, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Urology (Impact Factor: 2.13). 04/2010; 76(3):703-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.071
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In part because of concern regarding overtreatment in men with prostate cancer, watchful waiting with active surveillance (WWAS) has been increasingly used in men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. The present study investigates the difference in costs between men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with up-front radical prostatectomy (RP) versus WWAS.
A cost model was constructed using data from centers that have published their results in men who were followed up with WWAS compared with the actual costs of up-front RP calculated from a high volume center. Two WWAS arms of 15-year duration were created in which the follow-up protocol and conversion rate to active treatment were varied.
The cost of up-front RP including costs of surgery, complications, and follow up for 15 years was $15 235 per person. Costs of WWAS were estimated using annual conversion rates from WWAS to RP of both 5% and 7%. Costs per person in the WWAS arms ranged from $6558 to $11 992 in the scenarios created which represent a 43%-78.7% reduction in costs when compared with men undergoing up-front RP.
Watchful waiting with active surveillance is being increasingly used in hopes of decreasing the potential overtreatment of prostate cancer in men with low-risk disease. The present study suggests that WWAS is likely to markedly decrease costs when compared with active treatment with RP.

1 Follower
  • Annals of internal medicine 04/2012; 156(8):582. DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00009 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical consequences of active surveillance compared with immediate treatment have been evaluated in patients with low-risk prostate cancer; yet, its financial benefits have not been adequately studied in Canada or elsewhere. Our study objective was to evaluate the direct costs associated with active surveillance and immediate treatment in the Canadian context.
    04/2014; 2(2):E60-8. DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20130037
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although prostate cancer (PCa) screening reduces the incidence of advanced disease and mortality, trade-offs include overdiagnosis and resultant overtreatment. To review primary data on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Electronic searches were conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2013 for original articles on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Supplemental articles were identified through hand searches. The lead-time and excess-incidence approaches are the main ways used to estimate overdiagnosis in epidemiological studies, with estimates varying widely. The estimated number of PCa cases needed to be diagnosed to save a life has ranged from 48 down to 5 with increasing follow-up. In clinical studies, generally lower rates of overdiagnosis have been reported based on the frequency of low-grade minimal tumors at radical prostatectomy (1.7-46.8%). Autopsy studies have reported PCa in 18.5-38.5%, although not all are low grade or low volume. Factors influencing overdiagnosis include the study population, screening protocol, and background incidence, limiting generalizability between settings. Reported rates of overtreatment vary widely in the literature, although contemporary international studies suggest increasing use of conservative management. Epidemiological, clinical, and autopsy studies have been used to examine PCa overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging widely from 1.7% to 67%. Correspondingly, estimates of overtreatment vary widely based on patient features and may be declining internationally. Careful patient selection for screening and reducing overtreatment are important to preserve the benefits and reduce the downstream harms of prostate-specific antigen testing. Because all of these estimates are extremely population and context specific, this must be considered when using these data to inform policy. Screening reduces spread and death from prostate cancer (PCa) but overdiagnoses some low-risk tumors that may not have caused harm. Because treatment has potential side effects, it is critical that not all patients with PCa receive aggressive treatment.
    European Urology 01/2014; 65(6). DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062 · 12.48 Impact Factor