Clinical and economic impact of blue light cystoscopy in the management of NMIBC at US ambulatory surgical centers: what is the site-of-service disparity?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Management of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) significantly impacts healthcare resource utilization due to requirements for ongoing surveillance. White light cystoscopy (WLC) represents the traditional approach to NMIBC disease surveillance, though physicians utilizing WLC alone may fail to detect all cancerous lesions. The approval of blue light cystoscopy (BLC) as an adjunct to WLC enhances the urologist's ability to more readily detect cancerous tissue. A more complete resection will reduce recurrences and could result in reduced costs for the US healthcare system. This analysis quantifies the clinical and economic impact of the incorporation of BLC in the management of NMIBC in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) considering current Center for Medicare Services (CMS) patient-physician coverage and reimbursement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A budget impact model was developed to assess projected ASC costs for a cohort of 50 newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients over a 2-year follow-up comparing WLC alone vs. WLC + BLC. Treatment and surveillance intervals were based on AUA/SUO clinical guidelines. Clinical and cost metrics for staging and biopsy rates were assessed, with cost inputs based on Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Use of WLC + BLC for NMIBC surveillance resulted in the identification of 5 additional NMIBC recurrences compared to WLC alone. There was an associated increased cost of performing BLC in an ASC setting, with a net increase in the total cost of care for NMIBC of $110 per cystoscopy over a 2-year period. If recurrences missed using WLC alone were to progress prior to detection, the model projects an increase in treatment costs borne by Medicare of $9,097 to $34,538 due to more intensive treatments required for the increased risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Modeled results suggests that the Medicare program will incur increased costs, due to the gap between added costs per cystoscopy due to BLC. The current discrepancy in reimbursement disincentivizes community-based ASCs from adopting BLC, resulting in suboptimal patient care while increasing downstream treatment costs to Medicare, necessitated when missed disease progresses to higher stage/grade disease. The findings have important clinical implications for the optimal management of NMIBC and should inform healthcare policies that promote cost-effectiveness and enhanced patient outcomes.

Hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic testing in the community urology practice setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of integrating a hereditary cancer risk assessment (HCRA) process in the community urology practice setting for patients with prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: In this prospective intervention, an HCRA process was implemented across six different community urology clinics between May 2019 and April 2020. The intervention included a process integration during which the workflow at each site was refined, a post-integration period during which HCRA was conducted in all patients with PCa, and a follow-up period during which healthcare providers and patients reported their satisfaction with the HCRA and genetic testing process. RESULTS: Among patients who completed a family history assessment during the post-integration period, 23.6% met guideline criteria for genetic testing. Of all patients seen at the clinic during the post-integration period, 8.7% completed genetic testing; this was a twofold increase over the period immediately preceding process integration (4.2%), and a sevenfold increase over the same period 1 year prior (1.2%). The majority of providers reported that the HCRA was as important as other regularly performed assessments (61.0%) and planned to continue using the process in their practice (68.3%). Most patients believed that the genetic test results were important for their future cancer care (84.7%) and had already shared their test results with at least one family member (63.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that implementing an HCRA process in the community urology practice setting was feasible, generally favored by providers and patients, and resulted in an increase in the number of patients with PCa who completed genetic testing.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Emerging Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most prevalent and costly chronic conditions among middle-aged and elderly men. Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and convective water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) are emerging minimally invasive surgical treatments as an alternative to traditional treatment options for men with moderate-to-severe BPH. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of PUL and WVTT for men with BPH using long-term clinical outcomes. Methods: The cost-effectiveness and budget impact models were developed from a US Medicare perspective over a 4-year time horizon. The models were populated with males with a mean age of 63 and an average International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 22. Clinical inputs were extracted from the LIFT and Rezum II randomized controlled trials at 4 years. Utility values were assigned using IPSS and BPH severity levels. Procedural, adverse event, retreatment, follow-up, and medication costs were based on 2019 Medicare payment rates and Medicare Part D drug spending. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed. Results: At 4 years, PUL was associated with greater retreatment rates (24.6% vs 10.9%), lower quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (3.490 vs 3.548) and higher total costs (US$7393 vs US$2233) compared with WVTT, making WVTT the more effective and less costly treatment strategy. The 70% total cost difference of PUL and WVTT was predominantly driven by higher PUL procedural (US$5617 vs US$1689) and retreatment (US$976 vs US$257) costs. The PSA demonstrated that relative to PUL, WVTT yielded higher QALYs and lower costs 99% and 100% of the time, respectively. Conclusions: Compared to PUL, WVTT was a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment of moderate-to-severe BPH. These findings provide evidence for clinicians, payers, and health policy makers to help further define the role of minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPH.

Development and evaluation of the MiCheck test for aggressive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: A clinical need exists for a biomarker test to accurately delineate aggressive prostate cancer (AgCaP), and thus better assist clinicians and patients decision-making on whether to proceed to prostate biopsy. OBJECTIVES: To develop a blood test for AgCaP and compare to PSA, %free PSA, proPSA, and prostate health index (PHI) tests. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient samples from the MiCheck-01 trial were used for development of the MiCheck test. METHODS: Serum analyte concentrations for cellular growth factors were determined using a custom-made Luminex-based R&D Systems multianalyte kit. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Bayesian model averaging and random forest approaches were used to identify clinical factors and growth factors able to distinguish between men with AgCaP (Gleason Score [GS] ≥3+4) from those with non-AgCaP (GS 3+3). Logistic regression and Monte Carlo cross-validation identified variable combinations in order to able to maximize differentiation of AgCaP from non-AgCaP. RESULTS: The MiCheck logistic regression model was developed and comprises the following variables: serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), patient age, Digital Rectal Exam (DRE) status, Leptin, IL-7, vascular endothelial growth factor, and Glypican-1. The model differentiated AgCaP from non-AgCaP with an area under the curve of 0.83 and was superior to PSA, %free PSA and PHI in all patient groups, regardless of PSA range. Applying the MiCheck test to all evaluable biopsy patients from the MiCheck-01 study demonstrated that up to 30% of biopsies could be avoided while delaying diagnosis of only 6.8% of GS ≥3+4 cancers, 5% of GS ≥4+3 cancers and no cancers of GS 8 or higher. CONCLUSIONS: The MiCheck test outperforms PSA, %free PSA and PHI tests in differentiating AgCaP vs. non-AgCaP patients. The MiCheck test could result in a significant number of biopsies being avoided with a low number of patients experiencing a delayed diagnosis.

Survival of African-American and Caucasian men after sipuleucel-T immunotherapy: outcomes from the PROCEED registry.

PURPOSE: African Americans experience greater prostate cancer risk and mortality than do Caucasians. An analysis of pooled phase III data suggested differences in overall survival (OS) between African American and Caucasian men receiving sipuleucel-T. We explored this in PROCEED (NCT01306890), an FDA-requested registry in over 1900 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with sipuleucel-T. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OS for patients who received ≥1 sipuleucel-T infusion was compared between African American and Caucasian men using an all patient set and a baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-matched set (two Caucasians to every one African American with baseline PSAs within 10% of each other). Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted. Survival data were examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methodologies. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 46.6 months. Overall survival differed between African American and Caucasian men with hazard ratios (HR) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.97, P = 0.03) in the all patient set and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.57-0.86, P < 0.001) in the PSA-matched set. Median OS was longer in African Americans than in Caucasian men for both analysis sets, e.g., 35.3 and 25.8 months, respectively, in the PSA-matched set. Similar results were observed in the all patient set. Differences were larger when treatment began at lower baseline PSA; curves were more similar among patients with higher baseline PSA. In patients with baseline PSA below the median, the HR was 0.52 (95% CI: 0.37-0.72, P < 0.001), with median OS of 54.3 versus 33.4 months. Known prognostic factors and African American race (multivariable analyses; HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.74, P < 0.001) were independently associated with OS. Use of post-sipuleucel-T anticancer interventions was balanced between races. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis of a registry including nearly 12% African American men with mCRPC, OS was significantly different between African Americans and Caucasians, indicating further research is warranted.

The Cost of Prostate Biopsies and their Complications: A Summary of Data on All Medicare Fee-for-Service Patients over 2 Years.

INTRODUCTION: We define the cost of a contemporary prostate biopsy and the rate and incremental impact of complications on costs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all Medicare fee-for-service claims for prostate biopsies in the United States from January 31, 2014 to December 1, 2015 was performed. Costs of each biopsy episode (including 30 days after each biopsy) were calculated. The effects of complications, biopsy setting and subsequent inpatient hospitalization were explored. RESULTS: The average cost of the 234,819 biopsies reviewed was $2,020 and 46% of biopsy costs occurred in the 30 days following each biopsy. Biopsies performed in the office setting comprised 66% of the total and were least costly ($1,750) compared to biopsies performed in ambulatory surgical centers ($2,260) and outpatient hospital settings ($2,730, both p <0.001). Biopsies performed in the office setting were associated with fewer complications (10%) compared to the outpatient hospital (19%) or ambulatory surgical center settings (12%, both p <0.001). An uncomplicated biopsy episode cost an average of $1,740, which increased to $4,060 when at least 1 complication occurred (difference +$2,320, p <0.001). The largest charges incurred were related to inpatient admissions, which added $13,840 to the cost of a prostate biopsy (p <0.001) but were rare, constituting only 2.8% of biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of costs during prostate biopsy episodes occur due to complications that occur in the days following a biopsy. These data should be used as benchmarks to incentivize interventions to reduce complications and subsequent admissions following biopsies.

Validating the total illness burden index for prostate cancer (TIBI-CaP) in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: data from TRUMPET.

AIM: To validate the total illness burden index for prostate cancer (TIBI-CaP) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. PATIENTS & METHODS: Baseline comorbidity scores collected using the TIBI-CaP were compared with the baseline patient-reported health-related quality of life using the SF-12v2 and FACT-P questionnaires in 302 patients enrolled in the Treatment Registry for Outcomes in CRPC Patients (TRUMPET). RESULTS: Baseline TIBI-CaP scores were negatively correlated with all baseline SF-12v2 domain/composite (p < 0.001) and FACT-P subscale/total (p < 0.020) scores. There was a significant decreasing linear trend in SF12v2 and FACT-P scores over the categories based on TIBI-CaP quartiles of comorbidity burden (from 'least' to 'severe'). CONCLUSION: The TIBI-CaP is a valid measure of comorbidity burden in patients with CRPC in the real world.

Recognizing Symptom Burden in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Global Patient and Caregiver Survey.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases in men with prostate cancer are often initially asymptomatic, resulting in delayed identification, diagnosis, and appropriate treatment. To assess how patients with advanced prostate cancer (aPC) communicate symptoms to health care providers, an international patient survey was conducted. METHODS: An online and phone survey was conducted by Harris Poll in 11 countries (Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States) from February 12 to October 27, 2015, in men with aPC (ie, those who reported as having PC beyond the prostate [metastatic]) and their caregivers. Cell weighting was used to ensure equal weight of data across countries. Percentages are based on weighted n values. RESULTS: A total of 927 men with aPC (weighted n = 664) and 400 caregivers completed the survey. Most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue (73%), urinary symptoms (63%), sexual function symptoms (62%), and bone pain (52%). Of 568 patients with bone metastases (weighted n = 421), most (73%) noticed pain before receiving a diagnosis of metastatic PC. Most patients with aPC (56%) were uncertain if their pain was cancer related, 55% felt they had to live with daily pain, 45% sometimes ignored pain, and 39% had difficulty talking about pain. Patients who had a caregiver were more likely than those without to discuss pain at every visit (45% vs. 32%, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Disease symptoms in aPC are often underrecognized. Tools encouraging effective communication among patients, caregivers, and health care providers on early symptom reporting may lead to enhanced symptom and disease management.

Impact of subsequent metastases on costs and medical resource use for prostate cancer patients initially diagnosed with localized disease.

BACKGROUND: The impact of subsequent metastases on costs and medical resource use (MRU) for prostate cancer (PC) patients initially diagnosed with localized disease was estimated. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, linked to Medicare (1999-2012), were used to identify 7482 patients diagnosed with subsequent metastases 12 months or more after the initial diagnosis of localized PC (cases), and they were matched to 25,709 localized PC patients without subsequent metastases (controls). Patients were followed for costs and MRU from 12 months before their index date (subsequent metastases or a matched date for controls) up to 12 months after it. Costs and MRU were stratified by the setting/type of care/service. Multivariate mixed effects regression analyses were used to construct and compare longitudinal trajectories of marginal predicted costs and predicted probabilities of MRU between cases and controls. RESULTS: Among the controls, predicted monthly costs remained relatively stable throughout the entire observation period (weighted mean per patient per month, $2746; range during 24 months, $2603-2858). In contrast, among the cases, costs increased from $2622 (95% confidence interval [CI], $2525-2719) 12 months before the diagnosis of subsequent metastases to $4767 (95% CI, $4623-4910) 1 month before the diagnosis of subsequent metastases, peaked during the month of metastases at $13,291 (95% CI, $13,148-13,435), and remained significantly higher than costs for the controls thereafter (eg, $4677 at + 12 months; 95% CI, $4549-4805). Costs and MRU increased across a wide range of settings/types, including inpatient, outpatient, home health, and hospice settings. CONCLUSIONS: In PC patients initially diagnosed with localized disease, a diagnosis of subsequent metastases is associated with substantially increased costs and MRU. Cancer 2017;123:3591-601. © 2017 American Cancer Society.