Cost-effective analysis and budget comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in a health insurance system in Thailand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52786/isu.a.17Keywords:
Prostate cancer, cost-effectiveness, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomyAbstract
Objectives: To compare the total medical cost and post-operative quality of life between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and to discuss the cost differences of each approach.
Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed from patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and who underwent LRP (n=68) or RALP (n=104) during a 36-month period. The prostate cancers of all patients were classified as low, intermediate, or high risk. Patient variables, inpatient hospital charges, outpatient total medical costs within 24 months and post-operative quality of life were compared.
Results: The baseline patient characteristics were similar between each group. Rates of positive margins and the need for further cancer treatment were correlated with the burden of disease (highest in the high risk group). The RALP inpatient hospital charges were higher in all risk groups. However, the mean total outpatient hospital charges were comparable. The RALP group demonstrated a trend towards better sexual-related quality of life in all risk groups. However, urinary incontinence, urinary-related, bowel-related, vitality-related quality of life were not significantly different between LRP and RALP.
Conclusion: From the payer’s perspective, RALP costs are higher than LRP costs. The clinical and quality of life benefits associated with RALP may not convert into a net savings of total medical costs within 24 months after surgery.
References
Lojanapiwat B. Urologic cancer in Thailand. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2015;45:1007-15.
Hakimi AA, Feder M, Ghavamian R. Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature. Urol J 2007;4:130-7.
Thiel DD, Winfield HN. Robotics in urology: past, present, and future. J endourol 2008;22:825-30.
Bolenz C, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, Lotan Y, Lowrance WT, Nelson JB, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014;65:316-24.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009;55:1037-63.
Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D, Su LM. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy--critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol 2006;49:612-24.
Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health technol Assess 2012;16:1-313.
Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, Shirley M, Vale L, Ramsay C, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol 2013;64:361-9.
Kim SP, Shah ND, Karnes RJ, Weight CJ, Shippee ND, Han LC, et al. Hospitalization costs for radical prostatectomy attributable to robotic surgery. Eur Urol 2013;64:11-6.
Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016;14:19-30.
Chang P, Szymanski KM, Dunn RL, Chipman JJ, Litwin MS, Nguyen PL, et al. Expanded prostate cancer index composite for clinical practice: development and validation of a practical health related quality of life instrument for use in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2011;186:865-72.
Caceres F, Sanchez C, Martinez-Pineiro L, Tabernero A, Alonso S, Cisneros J, et al. [Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robotic]. Arch Esp de Urol 2007;60:430-8.
Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, Ho R, Cadeddu JA, Roehrborn CG, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:453-8.
Makarov DV, Loeb S, Landman AB, Nielsen ME, Gross CP, Leslie DL, et al. Regional variation in total cost per radical prostatectomy in the healthcare cost and utilization project nationwide inpatient sample database. J Urol 2010;183:1504-9.
Hohwu L, Borre M, Ehlers L, Venborg Pedersen K. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ 2011;14:403-9.
Tangcharoensathien V, Witthayapipopsakul W, Panichkriangkrai W, Patcharanarumol W, Mills A. Health systems development in Thailand: a solid platform for successful implementation of universal health coverage. Lancet 2018;391:1205-23.
Paek SC, Meemon N, Wan TT. Thailand’s universal coverage scheme and its impact on health-seeking behavior. Springerplus 2016;5:1952.
Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:701-4.
Chang KD, Abdel Raheem A, Choi YD, Chung BH, Rha KH. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system: surgical technique and results of the first human trial. BJU Int 2018;122:441-8.
Rao PP. Robotic surgery: new robots and finally some real competition! World J Urol 2018;36:537- 41.
