Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Med Econ ; 26(1): 1099-1107, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37656223

RESUMO

AIMS: Focal therapy treats individual areas of tumour in non-metastatic prostate cancer in patients unsuitable for active surveillance. The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of focal therapy versus prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort health state transition model with four health states (stable disease, local recurrence, metastatic disease and death) was created, evaluating costs and utilities over a 10-year time horizon for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. National Health Service (NHS) for England perspective was used, based on direct healthcare costs. Clinical transition probabilities were derived from prostate cancer registries in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, EBRT and focal therapy using cryotherapy (Boston Scientific) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (Sonablate). Propensity score matching was used to ensure that at-risk populations were comparable. Variables included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group, maximum cancer core length (mm), T-stage and year of treatment. RESULTS: Focal therapy was associated with a lower overall cost and higher quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains than either prostatectomy or EBRT, dominating both treatment strategies. Positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) values confirm focal therapy as cost-effective versus the alternatives at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed consistent results. LIMITATIONS: Data used to calculate the transition probabilities were derived from a limited number of hospitals meaning that other potential treatment options were excluded. Limited data were available on later outcomes and none on quality of life data, therefore, literature-based estimates were used. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness modelling demonstrates use of focal therapy (cryotherapy or HIFU) is associated with greater QALY gains at a lower overall cost than either radical prostatectomy or EBRT, representing good value for money in the NHS.


Focal therapy can be used for the primary treatment of individual areas of cancer in those patients with prostate cancer whose disease has not spread (localized or non-metastatic prostate cancer) and whose disease is unsuitable for active monitoring. Focal therapy in these patients results in similar control of the cancer to more invasive therapies, such as surgical removal of the prostate and radiotherapy, with the benefit of fewer sexual, urinary and rectal side effects. This work considered whether using focal therapy (either freezing the cancer cells using cryotherapy or using high-intensity focused ultrasound [HIFU] to destroy cancer cells) was good value for money in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with surgery or radiotherapy. An economic model was developed which considered the relative impact of treatment with focal therapies, surgery or radiotherapy within the NHS in England. Previously collected information from people undergoing treatment for their prostate cancer, together with published literature and clinical opinion, was used within the model to predict the treatment pathway, costs incurred and the results of treatment in terms of patient benefits (effectiveness and quality of life). The model showed that focal therapy using either cryotherapy or HIFU was associated with a lower overall cost and higher patient benefit than either surgery or radiotherapy, indicating that focal therapy represents good value for money in the NHS.


Assuntos
Análise de Custo-Efetividade , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Medicina Estatal , Qualidade de Vida , Análise Custo-Benefício , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Prostatectomia
2.
BJU Int ; 131(4): 461-470, 2023 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36134435

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes within the Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) diagnostic pathway, introduced to reduce patient and healthcare burdens and standardize delivery of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2130 patients from three centres who completed the RAPID pathway (3 April 2017 to 31 March 2020) were consecutively entered as a prospective registry. These patients were also compared to a pre-RAPID cohort of 2435 patients. Patients on the RAPID pathway with an MRI score 4 or 5 and those with PSA density ≥0.12 and an MRI score 3 were advised to undergo a biopsy. Primary outcomes were rates of biopsy and cancer detection. Secondary outcomes included comparison of transperineal biopsy techniques, patient acceptability and changes in time to diagnosis before and after the introduction of RAPID. RESULTS: The median patient age and PSA level were 66 years and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively. Biopsy could be omitted in 43% of patients (920/2130). A further 7.9% of patients (168/2130) declined a recommendation for biopsy. The percentage of biopsies avoided among sites varied (45% vs 36% vs 51%; P < 0.001). In all, 30% (221/742) had a local anaesthetic (grid and stepper) transperineal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer detection (any Gleason score ≥3 + 4) was 26% (560/2130) and detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 alone constituted 5.8% (124/2130); detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 did not significantly vary among sites (P = 0.7). Among participants who received a transperineal targeted biopsy, there was no difference in cancer detection rates among local anaesthetic, sedation and general anaesthetic groups. In the 2435 patients from the pre-RAPID cohor, time to diagnosis was 32.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.3-34.9) compared to 15.9 days (95% CI 12.9-34.9) in the RAPID group. A total of 141 consecutive patient satisfaction surveys indicated a high satisfaction rate with the pathway; 50% indicated a preference for having all tests on a single day. CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID prostate cancer diagnostic pathway allows 43% of men to avoid a biopsy while preserving good detection of clinically significant cancers and low detection of insignificant cancers, although there were some centre-level variations.


Assuntos
Próstata , Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Anestésicos Locais , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e042953, 2021 02 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33632752

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Survival in men diagnosed with de novo synchronous metastatic prostate cancer has increased following the use of upfront systemic treatment, using chemotherapy and other novel androgen receptor targeted agents, in addition to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Local cytoreductive and metastasis-directed interventions are hypothesised to confer additional survival benefit. In this setting, IP2-ATLANTA will explore progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes with the addition of sequential multimodal local and metastasis-directed treatments compared with standard care alone. METHODS: A phase II, prospective, multicentre, three-arm randomised controlled trial incorporating an embedded feasibility pilot. All men with new histologically diagnosed, hormone-sensitive, metastatic prostate cancer, within 4 months of commencing ADT and of performance status 0 to 2 are eligible. Patients will be randomised to Control (standard of care (SOC)) OR Intervention 1 (minimally invasive ablative therapy to prostate±pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND)) OR Intervention 2 (cytoreductive radical prostatectomy±PLND OR prostate radiotherapy±pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT)). Metastatic burden will be prespecified using the Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease (CHAARTED) definition. Men with low burden disease in intervention arms are eligible for metastasis-directed therapy, in the form of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery. Standard systemic therapy will be administered in all arms with ADT±upfront systemic chemotherapy or androgen receptor agents. Patients will be followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. PRIMARY OUTCOME: PFS. Secondary outcomes include predictive factors for PFS and overall survival; urinary, sexual and rectal side effects. Embedded feasibility sample size is 80, with 918 patients required in the main phase II component. Study recruitment commenced in April 2019, with planned follow-up completed by April 2024. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee Wales-5 (19/WA0005). Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03763253; ISCRTN58401737.


Assuntos
Antagonistas de Androgênios , Neoplasias da Próstata , Algoritmos , Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Fase II como Assunto , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , País de Gales
4.
Eur Urol Focus ; 7(2): 301-308, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31590961

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The oncological outcomes in men with clinically significant prostate cancer following focal cryotherapy are promising, although functional outcomes are under-reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of focal cryotherapy on urinary and sexual function, specifically assessing return to baseline function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2013 and November 2016, 58 of 122 men who underwent focal cryotherapy for predominantly anterior clinically significant localised prostate cancer within a prospective registry returned patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires, which included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) questionnaires. INTERVENTION: Standard cryotherapy procedure using either the SeedNet or the Visual-ICE cryotherapy system. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome was return to baseline function of IPSS score and IIEF erectile function (EF) subdomain. Cumulative incidence and Cox-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Probability of returning to baseline IPSS function was 78% at 12 mo and 87% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. For IIEF (EF domain), the probability of returning to baseline function was 85% at 12 mo and 89% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. Only the preoperative IIEF-EF score was associated with a poor outcome (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.999, p = 0.04). The main limitation was that only half of the patients returned their questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing primary focal cryotherapy, there is a high degree of preservation of urinary and erectile function with return to baseline function occurring from 3 mo and continuing up to 18 mo after focal cryotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In men who underwent focal cryotherapy for prostate cancer, approximately nine in 10 returned to their baseline urinary and sexual function. Keeping in mind that level 1 evidence and long-term data are still needed, in men who wish to preserve urinary and sexual function, focal cryotherapy may be considered an alternative treatment option to radical therapy.


Assuntos
Disfunção Erétil , Neoplasias da Próstata , Crioterapia , Disfunção Erétil/terapia , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia
5.
Curr Urol Rep ; 21(10): 38, 2020 Aug 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32803471

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rapid advances in imaging of the prostate have facilitated the development of focal therapy and provided a non-invasive method of estimating tumour volume. Focal therapy relies on an accurate estimate of tumour volume for patient selection and treatment planning so that the optimal energy dose can be delivered to the target area(s) of the prostate while minimising toxicity to surrounding structures. This review provides an overview of different imaging modalities which may be used to optimise tumour volume assessment and critically evaluates the published evidence for each modality. RECENT FINDINGS: Multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) has become the standard tool for patient selection and guiding focal therapy treatment. The current evidence suggests that mp-MRI may underestimate tumour volume, although there is a large variability in results. There remain significant methodological challenges associated with pathological processing and accurate co-registration of histopathological data with mp-MRI. Advances in different ultrasound modalities are showing promise but there has been limited research into tumour volume estimation. The role of PSMA PET/CT is still evolving and further investigation is needed to establish if this is a viable technique for prostate tumour volumetric assessment. mp-MRI provides the necessary tumour volume information required for selecting patients and guiding focal therapy treatment. The potential for underestimation of tumour volume should be taken into account and an additional margin applied to ensure adequate treatment coverage. At present, there are no other viable image-based alternatives although advances in new technologies may refine volume estimations in the future.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Carga Tumoral , Humanos , Masculino , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética Multiparamétrica , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Planejamento de Assistência ao Paciente , Seleção de Pacientes , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons combinada à Tomografia Computadorizada , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia
7.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 93: 105999, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32302790

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Técnicas de Ablação/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Técnicas de Ablação/efeitos adversos , Técnicas de Ablação/educação , Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Anilidas/uso terapêutico , Braquiterapia/efeitos adversos , Braquiterapia/economia , Braquiterapia/métodos , Custos e Análise de Custo , Estudos de Equivalência como Asunto , Finasterida/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Masculino , Terapia Neoadjuvante/métodos , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia , Nitrilas/uso terapêutico , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Estudos Prospectivos , Prostatectomia/efeitos adversos , Prostatectomia/economia , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Radioterapia/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia/economia , Radioterapia/métodos , Projetos de Pesquisa , Compostos de Tosil/uso terapêutico , Reino Unido
8.
BJU Int ; 125(6): 853-860, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31971335

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Ultrassom Focalizado Transretal de Alta Intensidade , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Estudos Prospectivos , Próstata/cirurgia , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Ultrassom Focalizado Transretal de Alta Intensidade/efeitos adversos , Ultrassom Focalizado Transretal de Alta Intensidade/estatística & dados numéricos
9.
Health Technol Assess ; 22(39): 1-176, 2018 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30040065

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Men with suspected prostate cancer usually undergo transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. TRUS-guided biopsy can cause side effects and has relatively poor diagnostic accuracy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-guided biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVES: To (1) assess the ability of mpMRI to identify men who can safely avoid unnecessary biopsy, (2) assess the ability of the mpMRI-based pathway to improve the rate of detection of clinically significant (CS) cancer compared with TRUS-guided biopsy and (3) estimate the cost-effectiveness of a mpMRI-based diagnostic pathway. DESIGN: A validating paired-cohort study and an economic evaluation using a decision-analytic model. SETTING: Eleven NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men at risk of prostate cancer undergoing a first prostate biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent three tests: (1) mpMRI (the index test), (2) TRUS-guided biopsy (the current standard) and (3) template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy (the reference test). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, TRUS-guided biopsy and TPM-biopsy measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using primary and secondary definitions of CS cancer. The percentage of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans was used to identify men who might be able to avoid biopsy. RESULTS: Diagnostic study - a total of 740 men were registered and 576 underwent all three tests. According to TPM-biopsy, the prevalence of any cancer was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67% to 75%]. The prevalence of CS cancer according to the primary definition (a Gleason score of ≥ 4 + 3 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 6 mm) was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%). For CS cancer, TRUS-guided biopsy showed a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 42% to 55%), specificity of 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%), PPV of 90% (95% CI 83% to 94%) and NPV of 74% (95% CI 69% to 78%). The sensitivity of mpMRI was 93% (95% CI 88% to 96%), specificity was 41% (95% CI 36% to 46%), PPV was 51% (95% CI 46% to 56%) and NPV was 89% (95% CI 83% to 94%). A negative mpMRI scan was recorded for 158 men (27%). Of these, 17 were found to have CS cancer on TPM-biopsy. Economic evaluation - the most cost-effective strategy involved testing all men with mpMRI, followed by MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy in those patients with suspected CS cancer, followed by rebiopsy if CS cancer was not detected. This strategy is cost-effective at the TRUS-guided biopsy definition 2 (any Gleason pattern of ≥ 4 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 4 mm), mpMRI definition 2 (lesion volume of ≥ 0.2 ml and/or Gleason score of ≥ 3 + 4) and cut-off point 2 (likely to be benign) and detects 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%) of CS cancers. The main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the unit costs of tests, the improvement in sensitivity of MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy compared with blind TRUS-guided biopsy and the longer-term costs and outcomes of men with cancer. LIMITATIONS: The PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) was carried out in a selected group and excluded men with a prostate volume of > 100 ml, who are less likely to have cancer. The limitations in the economic modelling arise from the limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of men with prostate cancer and on the sensitivity of MRI-targeted repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating mpMRI into the diagnostic pathway as an initial test prior to prostate biopsy may (1) reduce the proportion of men having unnecessary biopsies, (2) improve the detection of CS prostate cancer and (3) increase the cost-effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. The PROMIS data set will be used for future research; this is likely to include modelling prognostic factors for CS cancer, optimising MRI scan sequencing and biomarker or translational research analyses using the blood and urine samples collected. Better-quality evidence on long-term outcomes in prostate cancer under the various management strategies is required to better assess cost-effectiveness. The value-of-information analysis should be developed further to assess new research to commission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16082556 and NCT01292291. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This project was also supported and partially funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (UCL) Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and UCL and by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and was co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (grant code MC_UU_12023/28). It was sponsored by UCL. Funding for the additional collection of blood and urine samples for translational research was provided by Prostate Cancer UK.


Assuntos
Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico/economia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/economia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Análise Custo-Benefício , Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico/métodos , Aspiração por Agulha Fina Guiada por Ultrassom Endoscópico/normas , Humanos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/normas , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Gradação de Tumores , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Próstata/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Grupos Raciais , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Medicina Estatal , Reino Unido
10.
In Vivo ; 27(6): 855-67, 2013.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24292593

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Debate is currently taking place over minimum case numbers for the care of premature infants and neonates in Germany. As a result of the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesauschuss, G-BA) guidelines for the quality of structures, processes, and results, requiring high levels of staffing resources, Level I perinatal centers are increasingly becoming the focus for health-economics questions, specifically, debating whether Level I structures are financially viable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a multistep contribution margin analysis, the operating results for the Obstetrics Section at the University Perinatal Center of Franconia (Universitäts-Perinatalzentrum Franken) were calculated for the year 2009. Costs arising per diagnosis-related group (DRG) (separated into variable costs and fixed costs) and the corresponding revenue generated were compared for 4,194 in-patients and neonates, as well as for 3,126 patients in the outpatient ultrasound and pregnancy clinics. RESULTS: With a positive operating result of € 374,874.81, a Level I perinatal center on the whole initially appears to be financially viable, from the obstetrics point of view (excluding neonatology), with a high bed occupancy rate and a profitable case mix. By contrast, the costs of prenatal diagnostics, with a negative contribution margin II of € 50,313, cannot be covered. A total of 79.4% of DRG case numbers were distributed to five DRGs, all of which were associated with pregnancies and neonates with the lowest risk profiles. CONCLUSION: A Level I perinatal center is currently capable of covering its costs. However, the cost-revenue ratio is fragile due to the high requirements for staffing resources and numerous economic, social, and regional influencing factors.


Assuntos
Centros de Saúde Materno-Infantil/economia , Assistência Perinatal/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Financiamento Governamental , Alemanha , Humanos , Centros de Saúde Materno-Infantil/legislação & jurisprudência , Corpo Clínico/economia , Modelos Econômicos , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/economia , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Assistência Perinatal/legislação & jurisprudência , Gravidez , Salários e Benefícios/economia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA