Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the 21st century: temporal trends in Australian population-based data.

OBJECTIVE: To examine national trends in the medical and surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) using Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) population data from 2000 to 2018. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Annual data was extracted from the MBS, PBS and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare databases for the years 2000-2018. Population-adjusted rates of BPH procedures and medical therapies were calculated and compared in relation to age. Cost analysis was performed to estimate financial burden due to BPH. RESULTS: Overall national hospital admissions due to BPH declined between 2000 and 2018, despite an increased proportion of admissions due to private procedures (42% vs 77%). Longitudinal trends in the medical management of BPH showed an increased prescription rate of dutasteride/tamsulosin combined therapy (111 vs 7649 per 100 000 men) and dutasteride monotherapy (149 vs 336 per 100 000 men) since their introduction to the PBS in 2011. Trends in BPH surgery showed an overall progressive increase in rate of total procedures between 2000 and 2018 (92 vs 133 per 100 000 men). Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remained the most commonly performed surgical procedure, despite reduced utilisation since 2009 (118 vs 89 per 100 000 men), offset by a higher uptake of photoselective vaporisation of prostate, holmium:YAG laser enucleation of prostate, and later likely due to minimally invasive surgical therapies including prostatic urethral lift and ablative technologies (including Rezum™). Financial burden due to BPH surgery has remained steady since 2009, whilst the burden due to medical therapy has risen sharply. CONCLUSION: Despite reduced national BPH-related hospitalisations, overall treatment for BPH has increased due to medical therapy and surgical alternatives to TURP. Further exploration into motivators for particular therapies and effect of medical therapy on BPH progression in clinical practice outside of clinical trials is warranted.

Trends in lumbar radiofrequency ablation utilization from 2007 to 2016.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an intervention used to treat facet-mediated chronic low back pain. In some studies with methods consistent with clinical practice guidelines, RFA results in improvements in pain and functional limitations. However, in other studies, RFA demonstrates limited benefit. Despite unanswered questions regarding efficacy of RFA, its use is widespread. PURPOSE: To describe trends in the utilization and cost of lumbar RFA and lumbar facet injections. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample was derived from the IBM/Watson MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases from 2007 to 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: Longitudinal trends in the distribution and quantity of lumbar facet injections before lumbar RFA, corticosteroid administration during lumbar facet injections, progression to lumbar RFA after lumbar facet injections, lumbar RFA utilization, and costs of these interventions. METHODS: Two primary cohorts were identified from patients who received lumbar RFA or lumbar facet injection procedures. Utilization rates per 100,000 enrollees were determined for both cohorts. The mean, median, and interquartile ranges of the number of facets targeted and costs per procedure were calculated by year and laterality, as well as overall. Costs in 2018 dollars were estimated by summing gross payment totals from patients and insurance plans. This study was supported by funds from the NIH, and has no conflict of interest associated biases. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2016, lumbar RFA sessions performed per 100,000 enrollees per year increased from 49 to 113, a 130.6% overall increase (9.7% annually). Lumbar facet injection use increased from 201 to 251 sessions per 100,000 enrollees, a 24.9% overall increase (2.5% annually). In the year after a lumbar facet injection, 26.7% of patients received lumbar RFA; 28.6% received another injection but not RFA; and 44.7% received neither. The number of patients receiving two lumbar facet injection procedures prior to lumbar RFA grew from 51.1% in 2010 to 58.8% in 2016. For lumbar RFA, the cost per 100,000 enrollees went from $94,570 in 2007 to $266,680 in 2016, a 12.2% annual increase. For lumbar facet injections, the cost per 100,000 enrollees went from $257,280 in 2007 to $396,580 in 2016, a 4.9% annual increase. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed consistent growth in both the frequency and procedure cost of lumbar RFA and facet injections among a large, national, commercially insured population from 2007 to 2016.

Assessment of the Surveillance Interval at 1 Year after Curative Treatment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Risk Stratification.

Background/Aims: Guidelines recommend surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence at 3-month intervals during the first year after curative treatment and 6-month intervals thereafter in all patients. This strategy does not reflect individual risk of recurrence. We aimed to stratify risk of recurrence to optimize surveillance intervals 1 year after treatment. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1,316 HCC patients treated with resection/radiofrequency ablation at Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A. In patients without 1-year recurrence under 3-monthly surveillance, a new model for recurrence was developed using backward elimination methods: training (n=582)/validation cohorts (n=291). Overall survival (OS) according to risk stratified by the new model was compared according to surveillance intervals: 3-monthly versus 6-monthly (n=401) after lead time bias correction and propensity-score matching analyses. Results: Among patients without 1-year recurrence, age and international normalized ratio values were significant factors for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.03; p=0.009 and HR, 5.63; 95% CI, 2.24 to 14.18; p<0.001; respectively). High-risk patients stratified by the new model showed significantly higher recurrence rates than low-risk patients in the validation cohort (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.53; p=0.005). After propensity-score matching between the 3-monthly and 6-monthly surveillance groups, OS in high-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was significantly higher than that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.04); however, OS in low-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was not significantly different from that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.17). Conclusions: In high-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance can prolong survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance. However, in low-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance might not be beneficial for survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance.

Is radiofrequency ablation of varicose veins a valuable option? A systematic review of the literature with a cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, new techniques for the treatment of varicose veins have emerged, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laser treatment. We performed a study to compare the safety, efficacy and outcomes of RFA compared to those of open surgery and laser ablation for the treatment of varicose veins. We also carried out a cost analysis of RFA compared to open surgery to assess whether RFA could help free up operating room time by being performed in an outpatient context. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (publication date May 2010-September 2013 for articles in English, January 1991-September 2013 for those in French). We used several checklists to measure the quality of the studies. We also collected data on costing. RESULTS: The literature search identified 924 publications, of which 38 were retained for analysis: 15 literature reviews, 1 good-practice guideline and 22 new primary studies. The overall level of evidence was low to moderate owing to the limited sample sizes, lack of information on patient characteristics and lack of standardization of the outcome measures. However, the results obtained are consistent from study to study. In the short and medium term, RFA is considered as effective as open surgery or laser treatment (moderate level of evidence) and presents fewer major and minor complications than open surgery (low level of evidence). Radiofrequency ablation can be performed on an outpatient basis. We calculated that RFA would be about $110-$220 more expensive per patient than open surgery. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency ablation is a valuable alternative to open surgery and would free up operating room time in a context of low accessibility.

CONTEXTE: Depuis les années 1990, de nouvelles techniques pour le traitement des varices ont émergé, y compris l'ablation par radiofréquence (ARF) et le traitement au laser. Nous avons procédé à une étude afin de comparer l'innocuité, l'efficacité et les résultats de l'ARF à ceux de la chirurgie ouverte et de l'ablation par laser pour le traitement des varices. Nous avons aussi procédé à une analyse des coûts de l'ARF comparativement à la chirurgie pour vérifier si, en étant effectuée en consultation externe, l'ARF permet de libérer du temps de bloc opératoire. MÉTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique de la documentation (articles publiés entre mai 2010 et septembre 2013 en langue anglaise, et entre janvier 1991 et septembre 2013 en langue française). Nous avons utilisé plusieurs séries de critères pour mesurer la qualité des études. Nous avons aussi recueilli des données sur l'estimation des coûts. RÉSULTATS: La recherche documentaire a permis de recenser 924 publications, dont 38 ont été retenues pour analyse : 15 examens documentaires, 1 directive de pratique optimale et 22 études principales. Le niveau de preuve global a été jugé de faible à modéré en raison de la taille limitée des échantillons, du manque d'information sur les caractéristiques des patients et de l'absence de normalisation des mesures paramétriques. Toutefois, les résultats obtenus concordent d'une étude à l'autre. À court et à moyen terme, l'ARF est considérée aussi efficace que la chirurgie ouverte ou que le traitement au laser (niveau de preuve modéré) et s'accompagne de moins de complications majeures et mineures que la chirurgie ouverte (faible niveau de preuve). L'ablation par radiofréquence peut être effectuée en consultation externe. Nous avons calculé que l'ARF couterait environ 110 à 220 $ de plus par patient comparativement à la chirurgie. CONCLUSION: L'ablation par radiofréquence est une solution de rechange valable à la chirurgie ouverte et pourrait libérer du temps de bloc opératoire dans un contexte d'accès restreint.