Project description:ImportanceThe cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy remains a subject of debate. Emergence of recent critical clinical data and changes in surgical equipment costs due to their shared use by different clinical specialties necessitate an updated cost-effectiveness analysis in a centralized, largely government-funded health care system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS).ObjectiveTo compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRP) using contemporary data on clinical outcomes, costs, and surgical volumes in the UK.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic analysis used a Markov model developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer. The model was constructed from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model simulated 65-year-old men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and were followed up for a 10-year period. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.ExposuresRobotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, LRP, and ORP.Main outcomes and measuresQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (direct medical costs and costs outside the NHS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsCompared with LRP, RARP cost £1785 (US $2350) less and had 0.24 more QALYs gained; thus, RARP was a dominant option compared with LRP. Compared with ORP, RARP had 0.12 more QALYs gained but cost £526 (US $693) more during the 10-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of £4293 (US $5653)/QALY. Because the ICER was below the £30 000 (US $39 503) willingness-to-pay threshold, RARP was more cost-effective than ORP in the UK. The most sensitive variable influencing the cost-effectiveness of RARP was the lower risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Scenario analysis indicated RARP would remain more cost-effective than ORP as long as the BCR hazard ratios comparing RARP vs ORP were less than 0.99.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that in the UK, RARP has an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus is likely a cost-effective surgical treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer compared with ORP and LRP. The results were mainly driven by the lower risk of BCR for RARP. These findings may differ in other health care settings where different thresholds and costs may apply.

Project description:BackgroundRobotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM.MethodsNeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life.DiscussionNeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world.Trial registrationNCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is not known.MethodsFrom November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PSA value, 7.8 ng per milliliter) to radical prostatectomy or observation and followed them through January 2010. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality.ResultsDuring the median follow-up of 10.0 years, 171 of 364 men (47.0%) assigned to radical prostatectomy died, as compared with 183 of 367 (49.9%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points). Among men assigned to radical prostatectomy, 21 (5.8%) died from prostate cancer or treatment, as compared with 31 men (8.4%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points). The effect of treatment on all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality did not differ according to age, race, coexisting conditions, self-reported performance status, or histologic features of the tumor. Radical prostatectomy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality among men with a PSA value greater than 10 ng per milliliter (P=0.04 for interaction) and possibly among those with intermediate-risk or high-risk tumors (P=0.07 for interaction). Adverse events within 30 days after surgery occurred in 21.4% of men, including one death.ConclusionsAmong men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644.).

Project description:Accurate estimation of recurrence risk is needed for optimal treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients. We combined classical clinicopathological predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and molecular markers into a new risk score for predicting BCR after radical prostatectomy (RP). A retrospective study which included 122 PCa patients who attended our department between 2000 and 2007 was conducted. Total RNA was isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded PCa tissue. Gene expression patterns were analyzed in 21 selected samples from 7 localized, 6 locally advanced, and 8 metastatic PCa patients using Illumina microarrays. Expression levels of 41 genes were validated by quantitative PCR in an independent retrospective series of 101 patients with ≥ 10 years follow-up who underwent RP for clinically localized PCa. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify individual predictors of BCR. A risk score (RS) for predicting BCR including clinicopathological and gene expression data was developed and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated. Interaction networks between the genes of the model were built by GeneMANIA Cytoscape plugin. In a median follow-up of 120 months (range 3-190), 37 patients developed BCR (36.6%). Expression levels of 7,930 transcripts differed between clinically localized and locally advanced-metastatic PCa groups (FDR<0.1). A set of 41 genes were validated by quantitative PCR. Regression analysis showed that expression of ASF1B and MCL1 as well as Gleason score, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and positive margins were independent prognostic factors of BCR. A RS generated using these gene expression and clinicopathological variables was able to discriminate between two groups of patients with a significantly different probability of BCR (HR 6.24; CI 3.23-12.4, p<0.01), improving the individual discriminative performance of each of these variables on their own. Direct interactions between the two genes of the model were not found. In conclusion, identification of new gene expression patterns associated with a high probability of BCR in clinically localized PCa patients treated with RP, and their combination with clinicopathological variables in a robust, easy-to-use and reliable classifier may contribute to improve PCa risk stratification and, consequently, to tailor treatment and surveillance strategies in these patients.

Dataset Information

Transversal approach via a bladder neck and prostate combined longitudinal incision versus standard approach of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a retrospective analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets