Societal costs of localized renal cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital-related costs of renal cancer surgery have been described, but the societal costs of surgery-related lost productivity are poorly understood. We estimated the societal cost of renal cancer surgery by assessing surgery-related time off work (TOW) taken by patients and their caretakers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 subjects who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy enrolled in an IRB-approved prospective study received an occupational survey assessing employment status, work physicality, income, surgery-related TOW, and caretaker assistance. We excluded subjects with incomplete occupational information or metastatic disease. We estimated potential wages lost using individual income and TOW, and used logistic regression to evaluate for factors predictive of TOW > 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 219 subjects who responded, 138 were employed at time of surgery. Ninety-seven subjects returned to work, met the inclusion criteria, and were analyzed. Mean age was 54 and 56% of subjects had sedentary jobs. TOW ranged from 7 to 92 days; mean and median TOW was 35 and 33 days, respectively and 58% of subjects took > 30 days off. Mean potential wages lost for TOW was $10,152. Eighty-three percent of subjects had at least one caretaker take TOW (mean/median caretaker TOW: 11/7 days, respectively) to assist in recovery. Subjects with sedentary jobs were less likely to take > 30 days off (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Most renal cancer surgery patients take over 1 month off work. Recognizing the associated societal costs may allow better adjustment of patient expectations, and more comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses in renal cancer care.

Clinical Use of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice to Assess Patient Reported Prostate Cancer Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: EPIC-CP (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice) is a short questionnaire that comprehensively measures patient reported health related quality of life at the point of care. We evaluated the feasibility of using EPIC-CP in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer without research infrastructure. We compared longitudinal patient and practitioner reported prostate cancer outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed health related quality of life outcomes in 482 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution from 2010 to 2014. EPIC-CP was administered and interpreted in routine clinical practice without research personnel. We compared practitioner documented rates of incontinence pad use and functional erections to patient reported rates using EPIC-CP. RESULTS: A total of 708 EPIC-CP questionnaires were completed. Mean urinary incontinence domain scores were significantly higher (worse) than baseline (mean ± SD 0.6 ± 0.2) 3 and 6 months after treatment (mean 3.1 ± 2.3 and 2.2 ± 2.1, respectively, each p <0.05) but they returned to baseline at 12 months (mean 1.6 ± 1.7, p >0.05). Mean sexual domain scores were significantly worse than baseline (mean 2.4 ± 2.8) at all posttreatment time points (each p <0.05). Practitioners significantly overestimated incontinence pad-free rates at 3 months (48% vs 39%) and functional erection rates at 3 months (18% vs 12%), 6 months (38% vs 23%) and 12 months (45% vs 23%, each p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EPIC-CP is feasible to use in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer without requiring a research infrastructure. Using EPIC-CP in clinical practice may help practitioners objectively assess and appropriately manage posttreatment side effects in patients with prostate cancer.