Real-world treatment patterns and medical costs of prostate cancer patients in Switzerland - A claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the most prevalent cancer in men in Switzerland. However, evidence on the real-world health care use of PC patients is scarce. The aim of this study is to describe health care utilization, treatment patterns, and medical costs in PC patients over a period of five years (2014-2018). METHOD: We used routinely collected longitudinal individual-level claims data from a major provider of mandatory health insurance in Switzerland. Due to the lack of diagnostic coding in the claims data, we identified treated PC patients based on the treatments received. We described health care utilization and treatment pathways for patients with localized and metastatic PC. Costs were calculated from a health care system perspective. RESULTS: A total of 5591 PC patients met the inclusion criteria. Between 2014 and 2018, 1741 patients had outpatient radiotherapy for localized or metastatic PC and 1579 patients underwent radical prostatectomy. 3502 patients had an androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). 9.5% of these patients had a combination therapy with docetaxel, and 11.0% had a combination with abiraterone acetate. Docetaxel was the most commonly used chemotherapy (first-line; n = 413, 78.4% of all patients in chemotherapy). Total medical costs of PC in Switzerland were estimated at CHF 347 m (95% CI 323-372) in 2018. CONCLUSION: Most PC patients in this study were identified based on the use of ADT. Medical costs of PC in Switzerland amounted to 0.45% of total health care spending in 2018. Treatment of metastatic PC accounted for about two thirds of spending.

[Prehabilitation prior to radical prostatectomy : A useful concept?] / Prähabilitation vor radikaler Prostatektomie : Ein sinnvolles Konzept?

Against the background of a continuous improvement of established treatment outcomes and the compatibility of health economic considerations, pre- and perioperative processes are constantly being developed and further optimized. In recent years, the concept of prehabilitation has gained increasing importance as a proactive approach to preparing patients for mostly surgical cancer treatment and improving their physical and mental health. Prehabilitation in oncology is a systematic process aimed at improving the physical, psychosocial, and nutritional condition of patients before and during cancer treatment. The goal of prehabilitation is to enhance patients' ability to cope with the physiological stress of cancer treatment and improve their overall health and well-being. In addition, prehabilitation has the potential to reduce costs for the healthcare system.

The Association between Income Status and Treatment Selection for Prostate Cancer in a Universal Health Care System: A Population-Based Analysis.

PURPOSE: Treatment selection for localized prostate cancer is guided by risk stratification and patient preferences. While socioeconomic status (SES) disparities exist for access to care, less is known about the effect of SES on treatment decision-making. We sought to evaluate whether income status was associated with the treatment selected (radical prostatectomy [RP] vs radiation therapy [RT]) for nonmetastatic prostate cancer in a universal health care system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All men from Manitoba, Canada who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2005 and 2016 and subsequently treated with RP or RT were identified using a provincial cancer database. SES was defined as neighborhood income by postal code and divided into income quintiles (Q1-Q5, with Q1 the lowest quintile and Q5 the highest). Multivariable logistic regression nested models were used to compare whether SES was associated with treatment type received. RESULTS: We identified 3,966 individuals who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and were treated with RP (2,354) or RT (1,612). After adjusting for demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, as income quintile increased, men were incrementally more likely to undergo RP than RT (range Q2 vs Q1: adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.93; Q5 vs Q1: adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.70-3.12). CONCLUSIONS: As income levels increased there was a stepwise incremental increase in the odds of receiving RP over RT for localized prostate cancer. These results may inform initiatives to better understand the values, priorities and barriers that patients experience when making treatment decisions in a universal health care system.

Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Costs and Use Associated With Open vs Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Importance: With the current patterns of adoption and use of robotic surgery and improvement in the overall survival of patients with prostate cancer, it is important to evaluate the immediate and long-term cost implications of treatments for patients with prostate cancer. Objective: To compare health care costs and use 1 year after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) vs robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used a US commercial claims database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. A total of 11 457 men aged 18 to 64 years who underwent inpatient radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and were continuously enrolled with medical and prescription drug coverage from 180 days before to 365 days after inpatient prostatectomy were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine the differences in costs and use of health care services by surgical modality. Data analysis was conducted from September 2019 to July 2020. Exposures: Type of surgical procedure: ORP vs RARP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes within 1 year after the inpatient prostatectomy were investigated: (1) total health care costs, including reimbursement paid by insurers and out of pocket by patients; (2) health care use, including inpatient readmission, emergency department, hospital outpatient, and office visits; and (3) estimated days missed from work due to health care use. Results: Of the 11 457 patients who underwent inpatient prostatectomy, 1604 (14.0%) had ORP and 9853 (86.0%) had RARP and most patients (8467 [73.9%]) were aged 55 to 64 years. Compared with patients who underwent ORP, those who received RARP had a higher cost at the index hospitalization (mean difference, $2367; 95% CI, $1821-$2914; P < .001), but similar total cumulative costs were observed within 180 days (mean difference, $397; 95% CI, -$582 to $1375; P = .43) and 1 year after discharge (-$383; 95% CI, -$1802 to $1037; P = .60). One-year postdischarge health care use was significantly lower in the RARP compared with ORP group for mean numbers of emergency department visits (-0.09 visits; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.07 visits; P < .001) and hospital outpatient visits (-1.5 visits; -1.63 to -1.36 visits; P < .001). The reduction in use of health care services among patients who underwent RARP translated into additional savings of $2929 (95% CI, $1600-$4257; P < .001) and approximately 1.69 fewer days (95% CI, 1.49-1.89 days; P < .001) missed from work for health care visits. Conclusions and Relevance: Total cumulative cost in this study was similar between ORP and RARP 1 year post discharge; this finding suggests that lower postdischarge health care use after RARP may offset the higher costs during the index hospitalization.

[Cost analysis of GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate: Benefit of ambulatory care]. / Analyse des coûts de la photovaporisation prostatique au laser Greenlight versus résection transurétrale de la prostate : intérêt de la prise en charge ambulatoire.

PURPOSE: To compare the costs associated with GreenLight XPS 180W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for an outpatient versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with a three nights hospitalization in a French private hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cost minimization analysis was performed between 2017 and 2019 in a French private hospital for the hospital stays associated with TURP and PVP procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The peri-operative cost-benefit assessment of the two procedures was analyzed from the establishment's point of view according to the micro-costing method. RESULTS: 871 surgical treatment for BPH had been performed during the period of the study, including 743 photoselective laser vaporization (85%). The average length of stay of patients undergoing TURP was 3,7 days versus 0,9 days for PVP including 64,7% ambulatory. The cost-benefit was more of 500€ per patient in favor of ambulatory PVP compared with TURP in conventional three nights hospitalization for level 1 hospital stays. CONCLUSION: In this private hospital center, ambulatory PVP seemed more cost-effective than TURP with a three nights hospitalization for a severity level 1 patient. The financial profit for the establishment was mostly due to reduction of the main length of stay and ambulatory care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic vs open simple prostatectomy in the modern robotic era: results from the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and hospitalisation cost between open (OSP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in the contemporary robotic era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NIS was queried for cases of OSP and RASP for the treatment of BPH between 2013 and 2016. Perioperative complications, unadjusted hospital cost and length of stay (LOS) were compared between RASP and OSP. Smoothed linear regression curves comparing hospitalisation cost by increasing LOS was stratified by surgical approach to identify point of cost equivalency between RASP and OSP. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to construct a hospitalisation cost model to examine the contribution of the robotic approach and LOS to hospitalisation cost. RESULTS: The total analytical cohort included 2551 OSP and 704 RASP procedures. Patients undergoing RASP were younger, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 68 (63-73) vs 71 (65-77) years, and with less comorbidity (76.8% vs 86.5%, P < 0.01). RASP was associated with fewer total complications (11.1% vs 29.2%, P < 0.01) and a greater likelihood of routine discharge to home rather than another facility (88.9% vs 76.7%, P < 0.01). While LOS was shorter with RASP (median [IQR], 2 [1-3] vs 4 [3-6] days, P < 0.01), total unadjusted hospitalisation cost (in United States dollars) was greater (median [IQR], $10 855 [$7965-$15 675] vs $13 467 [$10 572-$17 722], P < 0.01). Presence of any complication increased both LOS and hospitalisation cost (P < 0.01). Linear regression modelling determined the point of cost equivalence between RASP staying a median of 2 days was an OSP case staying between 5 and 6 days. On multivariable regression analysis, the robotic approach contributed an additional $6175 (P < 0.01) to the cost model, whereas each additional day of hospitalisation contributed $1687 (P < 0.01), suggesting LOS would need to be 3-4 days shorter with RASP to offset surgical costs of the robot. CONCLUSIONS: While RASP appears to have significantly better perioperative complication rates with shorter LOS and likely discharge to home, total hospitalisation cost remained greater, likely related to upfront operative costs. While this retrospective study is limited by selection bias for patients undergoing RASP, the benefits of improved convalescence, discharge to home, and lower rate of perioperative complications appear to justify performance of RASP in an experienced pelvic robotic centre despite relatively greater hospitalisation cost if referral to an experienced holmium laser enucleation of the prostate centre is not feasible.

Active Surveillance for Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optimal treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer remains unclear. National Comprehensive Cancer Network® guidelines recommend active surveillance, prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Recent trials demonstrated no difference in prostate cancer specific mortality for men undergoing active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer compared to prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The use of active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer is less clear. In this study we characterize U.S. national trends for demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined 176,122 men diagnosed with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate risk prostate cancer and association with the use of active surveillance were characterized. The analysis was performed in April 2020. RESULTS: In total, 176,122 men were identified with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016. Of these men 57.3% underwent prostatectomy, 36.4% underwent radiotherapy and 3.2% underwent active surveillance. Active surveillance nearly tripled from 1.6% in 2010 to 4.6% in 2016 (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis use of active surveillance was associated with older age, diagnosis in recent years, lower Gleason score and tumor stage, type of insurance, treatment at an academic center and proximity to facility, and attaining higher education (p <0.05). Race and comorbidities were not associated with active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight increasing active surveillance use for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer demonstrating clinical and socioeconomic disparities. Prospective data and improved risk stratification are needed to guide optimal treatment for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Modelling the lifetime cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active monitoring for men with clinically localised prostate cancer from median 10-year outcomes in the ProtecT randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management strategies for clinically localised prostate cancer are debated. Using median 10-year data from the largest randomised controlled trial to date (ProtecT), the lifetime cost-effectiveness of three major treatments (radical radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy and active monitoring) was explored according to age and risk subgroups. METHODS: A decision-analytic (Markov) model was developed and informed by clinical input. The economic evaluation adopted a UK NHS perspective and the outcome was cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained (reported in UK£), estimated using EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS: Costs and QALYs extrapolated over the lifetime were mostly similar between the three randomised strategies and their subgroups, but with some important differences. Across all analyses, active monitoring was associated with higher costs, probably associated with higher rates of metastatic disease and changes to radical treatments. When comparing the value of the strategies (QALY gains and costs) in monetary terms, for both low-risk prostate cancer subgroups, radiotherapy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£293,446 [95% CI £282,811 to £299,451] by D'Amico and £292,736 [95% CI £284,074 to £297,719] by Grade group 1). However, the sensitivity analysis highlighted uncertainty in the finding when stratified by Grade group, as radiotherapy had 53% probability of cost-effectiveness and prostatectomy had 43%. In intermediate/high risk groups, using D'Amico and Grade group > = 2, prostatectomy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£275,977 [95% CI £258,630 to £285,474] by D'Amico and £271,933 [95% CI £237,864 to £287,784] by Grade group). This finding was supported by the sensitivity analysis. Prostatectomy had the greatest net benefit (£290,487 [95% CI £280,781 to £296,281]) for men younger than 65 and radical radiotherapy (£201,311 [95% CI £195,161 to £205,049]) for men older than 65, but sensitivity analysis showed considerable uncertainty in both findings. CONCLUSION: Over the lifetime, extrapolating from the ProtecT trial, radical radiotherapy and prostatectomy appeared to be cost-effective for low risk prostate cancer, and radical prostatectomy for intermediate/high risk prostate cancer, but there was uncertainty in some estimates. Longer ProtecT trial follow-up is required to reduce uncertainty in the model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

Health economic impact of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer.

Background: Prior studies have established that broader incorporation of active surveillance, guided by additional prognostic tools, may mitigate the growing economic burden of localized prostate cancer in the USA. This study sought to further explore the potential of a particular gene expression-based prognostic tool to address this unmet need. Materials & methods: A deterministic, decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the economic impact of the Prolaris® test on a US commercial health plan. Results & conclusion: When adopted in patients classified by the American Urological Association as low or intermediate risk, the assay was projected to reduce costs by $1894 and $2129 per patient over 3 and 10 years, respectively, largely through the increased use of active surveillance.

Holmium laser prostatectomy in a tertiary Italian center: A prospective cost analysis in comparison with bipolar TURP and open prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact of Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP). METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2018, we prospectively enrolled 151 men who underwent HoLEP, TURP or OP at tertiary Italian center, due to bladder outflow obstruction symptoms. Patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and those with prostate volume > 70 cc were scheduled for TURP or HoLEP and OP or HoLEP, respectively. Intraoperative and early post-operative functional outcomes were recorded up to 6 months follow up. Cost analysis was carried out considering direct costs (operating room [OR] utilization costs, nurse, surgeons and anesthesiologists' costs, OR disposable products costs and OR products sterilization costs), indirect costs (hospital stay costs and diagnostics costs) and global costs as sum of both direct and indirect plus general costs related to hospitalization. Cost analysis was performed comparing patients referred to TURP and HoLEP with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and men underwent OP and HoLEP with prostate volume > 70 cc respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 53 (35.1%), 51 (33.7%) and 47 (31.1%) were scheduled to HoLEP, TURP and OP, respectively. Both TURP, HoLEP and OP proved to effectively improve urinary symptoms related to BPE. Considering patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was similar to median global cost of TURP (2151.69 € vs. 2185.61 €, respectively; p = 0.61). Considering patients with prostate volume > 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was found to be significantly lower than median global cost of OP (2174.15 € vs. 4064.97 €, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Global costs of HoLEP are comparable to those of TURP, offering a cost saving of only 11.4 € in favor of HoLEP. Conversely, HoLEP proved to be a strong competitor of OP because of significant global cost sparing amounting to 1890.82 € in favor of HoLEP.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway optimizes outcomes and costs for minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway on patients undergoing minimally invasive radical prostatectomy at a single institute. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 301 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from May 2014 to September 2018 were consecutively recruited. Before April 2017, the patients were treated with conventional care; all patients were treated with the ERAS pathway thereafter. The primary outcome was the postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes were hospitalization costs and postoperative complications. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients were treated with the ERAS pathway, and the remaining patients underwent conventional care. The postoperative LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the conventional group (median, 6 vs. 8 days). The hospitalization costs were also significantly lower in the ERAS group ($4086 vs. $5530). Ten (6.1%) patients in the ERAS group and 17 (12.3%) patients in the conventional group developed postoperative complications. The multivariable analysis showed that ERAS care was a significant independent predictive factor for a shortened LOS and reduced hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: The ERAS pathway was associated with a shortened LOS and reduced hospitalization costs for patients undergoing minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): A prospective, multi-centre therapeutic phase II parallel Randomised Control Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy (FT) targets individual areas of cancer within the prostate, providing oncological control with minimal side-effects. Early evidence demonstrates encouraging short-medium-term outcomes. With no randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing FT to radical therapies, Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (CHRONOS) will compare the cancer control of these two strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CHRONOS is a parallel phase II RCT for patients with clinically significant non-metastatic prostate cancer, dependent upon clinician/patient decision, patients will enrol into either CHRONOS-A or CHRONOS-B. CHRONOS-A will randomize patients to either radical treatment or FT. CHRONOS-B is a multi-arm, multistage RCT comparing focal therapy alone to FT with neoadjuvant agents that might improve the current focal therapy outcomes. An internal pilot will determine the feasibility of, and compliance to, randomization. The proposed definitive study plans to recruit and randomize 1190 patients into CHRONOS-A and 1260 patients into CHRONOS-B. RESULTS: Primary outcome in CHRONOS-A is progression-free survival (transition to salvage local or systemic therapy, development of metastases or prostate-cancer-related mortality) and in CHRONOS-B is failure-free survival (includes the above definition and recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer after initial FT). Secondary outcomes include adverse events, health economics and functional outcomes measured using validated questionnaires. CHRONOS is powered to assess non-inferiority of FT compared to radical therapy in CHRONOS-A, and superiority of neoadjuvant agents with FT in CHRONOS-B. CONCLUSION: CHRONOS will assess the oncological outcomes after FT compared to radical therapy and whether neoadjuvant treatments improve cancer control following one FT session.

Reducing preoperative blood orders and costs for radical prostatectomy.

Aim: A maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) was implemented at our institution to optimize preoperative blood ordering and reduce unnecessary blood preparation for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), a common urologic procedure. Materials & methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent RP from 2010 to 2016 and categorized patients by date of RP (pre- or post-MSBOS) and compared preoperative blood-ordering practices. Results: After MSBOS implementation, preoperative blood orders changed from predominantly type and cross-match 2 units (53%) to no sample (56%) for robot-assisted laparoscopic RP, and from mostly type and cross-match 2 units (62%) to type and screen (75%) for open RP with resultant cost savings. Conclusion: MSBOS implementation and compliance decreases unnecessary preoperative blood orders.

State of the art: Open prostatectomy for benign prostate hyperplasia: Should we avoid it in all cases?

Surgical procedures for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) had considerably evolved during last decades. New techniques can nowadays treat prostate big in size, which are classically treated by open prostatectomy (OP). Therefore, the place of this procedure that has been used for over 150 years is nowadays questioned. Is it outdated? Is there emerging techniques that are more efficient, safer and cost effective? This state of the art based on literature review will assess the place of OP in BPH surgery from efficacy on functional outcomes, security, competitiveness with modern and minimally invasive techniques and socio-economic perspectives. Currently, OP has excellent functional outcomes, with low rate of retreatment after surgery, low morbidity and affordable cost in our country. It remains competitive with new surgery techniques for BPH, even if the latter offer the advantages of a minimally invasive surgery, especially in hospitalization length. Taking in consideration the social and economic context in Tunisia, it remains the most accessible and affordable surgical technique. Besides, OP is a procedure that has to be handled by every urologist given the theoretical risk of conversion during endoscopic surgery of BPH, and its use under certain circumstances (In case of bladder lithiasis ou diverticle or impossibility of lithotomy position).

Outcomes for urologic oncology procedures: are there differences between academic and community hospitals?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of hospital-based outcomes including costs, 30-day readmission, mortality, and length of stay in patients who underwent major urologic oncologic procedures in academic and community hospitals. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Vizient Database (Irving, Texas) from September 2014 to December 2017. Vizient includes ~ 97% of academic hospitals (AH) and more than 60 community hospitals (CH). Patients aged ≥ 18 with urologic malignancies who underwent surgical treatment were included. Chi square and Student t tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: We identified a total of 37,628 cases. There were 33,290 (88%) procedures performed in AH and 4330 (12%) in CH. These included prostatectomy (18,540), radical nephrectomy (rNx) 8059, partial nephrectomy (pNx) (5287), radical cystectomy (4421), radical nephroureterectomy (rNu) (1006), and partial cystectomy (321). There were no significant differences in 30-day readmission rates or mortality for any procedure between academic and community hospitals (Table 1), p > 0.05 for all. Length of stay was significantly lower for radical cystectomy and prostatectomy in AH (p < 0.01 for both) and lower for rNx in CH (p = 0.03). The mean direct cost for index admission was significantly higher in AH for rNx, pNx, rNu, and prostatectomy. Case mix index was similar between the community and academic hospitals. CONCLUSION: Despite academic and community hospitals having similar case complexity, direct costs were lower in community hospitals without an associated increase in readmission rates or deaths. Length of stay was shorter for cystectomy in academic centers.

Economic burden of illness associated with localized prostate cancer in the United States.

Aim: Prior studies have established the economic burden of prostate cancer on society. However, changes to screening, novel therapies and increased use of active surveillance (AS) create a need for an updated analysis. Methods: A deterministic, decision-analytic model was developed to estimate medical costs associated with localized prostate cancer over 10 years. Results: 10-year costs averaged $45,957, $99,445 and $188,928 for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. For low-risk patients, AS 10-year costs averaged $33,912/patient, whereas definitive treatment averaged $49,667/patient. Despite higher failure rates in intermediate-risk patients, AS remained less costly than definitive treatment, with 10-year costs averaging $90,614/patient and $99,394/patient, respectively. Conclusion: Broader incorporation of AS, guided by additional prognostic tools, may mitigate this growing economic burden.

Same Day Discharge after Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The typical mean length of stay following robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is 24 to 48 hours. We began routinely offering same day discharge from the hospital after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. We evaluated the success rate, safety and cost implications in what is to our knowledge the only large series of same day discharge to date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Beginning in September 2016 all patients were given the option of same day discharge without it being mandated. After allowing 3 months to solidify the protocol we evaluated our prospective database for the next 500 patients. RESULTS: Of the 500 consecutive men who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy performed by 1 surgeon in 18 months 246 (49.2%) were discharged home the day of surgery and all of the remaining 254 were discharged the next day for a mean 0.51-day length of stay. Mean patient age was 62 years (range 42 to 81) and mean body mass index was 29.7 kg/m2 (range 20 to 53). Of the patients 34 (6.8%) had a Clavien-Dindo grade I-III complication within 90 days but there were no grade IV-V complications. Only 5 patients (1%) required an emergency department visit and only 8 (1.6%) required readmission. Only 1 of the patients who elected same day discharge was rehospitalized and only 1 presented to the emergency department. The estimated charge for an overnight stay at our institution is $2,109. The approximate reduction in charges was $518,814 during 18 months ($345,876 per year) with no increased cost due to emergency department visits or hospital readmissions compared with that of overnight patients. In the most recent 100 patients the rate of same day discharge improved to 65%. CONCLUSIONS: Same day discharge following robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy can be safely routinely offered with no increase in readmissions or emergency visits. It may lead to significant savings in health care costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Active Surveillance, Radical Prostatectomy and External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ProtecT Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite increasing emphasis on value based care, to our knowledge the cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer management options has not been compared using prospective clinical trial data. The ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial demonstrated no difference in survival in patients randomized to active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We compared cost-effectiveness among the arms of ProtecT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy based on ProtecT outcomes, specifically 6-year quality of life data and 10-year oncologic data. Costs were based on 2017 Medicare reimbursement while utility values were assigned using the literature. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six years after randomization the mean costs per patient were $12,143 for active surveillance, $17,781 for radical prostatectomy and $29,238 for external beam radiotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to active surveillance was $127,752/QALY for radical prostatectomy and $381,894/QALY for external beam radiotherapy. Ten years after randomization radical prostatectomy ($5,627/QALY) and external beam radiotherapy ($78,291/QALY) were more cost-effective than active surveillance. The model was sensitive to the metastasis rate on active surveillance with a threshold of 2.4% at 10 years, below which active surveillance was more cost-effective than radical prostatectomy. On multivariable sensitivity analysis at 10 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY the most cost-effective strategy was radical prostatectomy in 45% of model microsimulations, external beam radiotherapy in 30% and active surveillance in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Although active surveillance represents a cost-effective strategy to manage localized prostate cancer during the initial several years after diagnosis, the relative cost-effectiveness of treatment emerges with extended followup.

Examining and Understanding Value: The Impact of Preoperative Characteristics, Intraoperative Variables, and Postoperative Complications on Cost of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.

Introduction and Objective: Quality-based reimbursement continues to gain popularity as value-based care becomes more prominent. Our goal is to describe the impact of preoperative characteristics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative complications on the cost of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Materials and Methods: Using our institution's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data, we identified minimally invasive prostatectomies performed from January 2012 to March 2017. A retrospective chart review was done to collect perioperative data; financial data were collected from the business office. Results: Two hundred seventy-five patients were identified during this time period. Median total cost was $16,600 (interquartile range $15,100-$18,300), and median direct cost (DC) was $11,200 ($10,100-$12,400). Among preoperative characteristics, body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2, diabetes, hypertension, and blood urea nitrogen >21 were associated with increased DCs of $500, $500, $200, and $600, respectively (p < 0.05). American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III was associated with increased DC of $200 compared with ASA classes I-II (p < 0.05). Considering intraoperative characteristics, increasing operative times and estimated blood loss (EBL) were associated with increased DC (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, respectively). Occurrence of any postoperative complication was associated with increased DC of $1400 (p < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, a 1-U increase in BMI was associated with a $129 increase in DC (p < 0.001), a length of stay (LOS) greater than 3 days was associated with a $4099 increase in DC (p < 0.001), a 30-minute increase in operating room duration was associated with a $410 increase in DC (p < 0.05), any postoperative complication was associated with a $5397 increase in DC (p < 0.01), and treatment for diabetes was associated with a $1860 increase in DC (p < 0.05). Conclusion: BMI, diabetes, operative duration, EBL, LOS, and postoperative complications were associated with significantly increased DC of RALP. Understanding perioperative factors affecting cost contributes to understanding value in prostatectomy and improving quality in urologic care.