An Economic Analysis of Bromocriptine Versus Trans-Sphenoidal Surgery for the Treatment of Prolactinoma.

Prolactinomas account for ∼40% of all pituitary adenomas and are important causes of infertility and gonadal dysfunction. In general, most prolactinomas are treated medically with dopaminergic agonists, while surgery is reserved for patients intolerant or nonresponsive to these medications. The aim of this study was to carry out a comparative analysis of the cost-effectiveness of medical therapy with bromocriptine and surgical therapy with trans-sphenoidal surgery. A Markov model was developed based on retrospective data from 126 patients with prolactinoma treated in our hospital between October 2008 and May 2009, and from data published previously. For patients with microadenoma, the cost of medical treatment was estimated to be ¥20,555, while the cost of surgery was calculated to be ¥22,527. For patients with macroadenoma, the cost of therapy with bromocriptine was ¥31,461 in males and ¥27,178 in females, while the cost of surgery was ¥42,357 in males and ¥44,094 in females. Sensitivity analyses (carried our using variations in patient age, bromocriptine therapeutic dose, bromocriptine maintenance dose, and the success rate of bromocriptine withdrawal) indicated that our model showed good stability, although our results were most heavily influenced by variations in the bromocriptine maintenance dose. It is concluded that, from an economic viewpoint, medical therapy with bromocriptine should be the first-line treatment option for patients with prolactinoma, irrespective of whether this is a microadenoma or macroadenoma.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Microscopic and Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery Versus Medical Therapy in the Management of Microprolactinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although prolactinomas are treated effectively with dopamine agonists, some have proposed curative surgical resection for select cases of microprolactinomas to avoid life-long medical therapy. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing transsphenoidal surgery (either microsurgical or endoscopic) and medical therapy (either bromocriptine or cabergoline) with decision analysis modeling. METHODS: A 2-armed decision tree was created with TreeAge Pro Suite 2012 to compare upfront transsphenoidal surgery versus medical therapy. The economic perspective was that of the health care third-party payer. On the basis of a literature review, we assigned plausible distributions for costs and utilities to each potential outcome, taking into account medical and surgical costs and complications. Base-case analysis, sensitivity analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of each strategy at 5-year and 10-year time horizons. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, microscopic transsphenoidal surgery was the most cost-effective option at 5 years from the time of diagnosis; however, by the 10-year time horizon, endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery became the most cost-effective option. At both time horizons, medical therapy (both bromocriptine and cabergoline) were found to be more costly and less effective than transsphenoidal surgery (i.e., the medical arm was dominated by the surgical arm in this model). Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endoscopic resection would be the most cost-effective strategy if the cure rate from endoscopic surgery was greater than 90% and the complication rate was less than 1%. Monte Carlo simulation was performed for endoscopic surgery versus microscopic surgery at both time horizons. This analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $80,235 per quality-adjusted life years at 5 years and $40,737 per quality-adjusted life years at 10 years, implying that with increasing time intervals, endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery is the more cost-effective treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results of our model, transsphenoidal surgical resection of microprolactinomas, either microsurgical or endoscopic, appears to be more cost-effective than life-long medical therapy in young patients with life expectancy greater than 10 years. We caution that surgical resection for microprolactinomas be performed only in select cases by experienced pituitary surgeons at high-volume centers with high biochemical cure rates and low complication rates.

Surgical treatment of prolactinomas: cons.

Prolactinomas account for approximately 40 % of all pituitary adenomas. Over 95 % of prolactinomas are microadenomas (< 10 mm diameter). Treatment is indicated to correct hypogonadism, restore other hormonal deficits, and alleviate local mass effects. Dopamine agonists (DA) are highly effective in achieving these goals and are well-tolerated. The vast majority of prolactinomas will respond to conventional doses of cabergoline (≤2 mg/week) that do not carry an increased risk of cardiac valvular abnormalities. DA therapy may be successful withdrawn in a subset of patients and thus is not necessarily a lifelong commitment. Although transsphenoidal surgery (TSS) is an option for prolactinoma treatment, it is less effective than medical management, carries considerably more risk, and is more expensive. The benefit/risk ratio for DA therapy compared to TSS actually becomes increasingly more favorable as tumor size increases. Therefore DA should remain the clear treatment of choice for essentially all patients with prolactinomas, reserving TSS as a second-line option for the very small number of patients that do not tolerate or are completely resistant to DA therapy.

Surgical treatment of microprolactinomas: pros.

Medical therapy with dopaminergic agonists (DAs) has been used for several decades for the treatment of both micro- and macroprolactinomas, without much differentiation between the two conditions. While most cases respond well to DAs in terms of prolactin normalization and control of tumor growth, DAs are often needed for many years, or even for lifetime. Concerns have been raised recently about the possible side effects of long-term use of these medications on the anatomy and function of the heart valves. While macroprolactinomas are rarely surgically curable, pituitary surgery in expert hands is a safe and effective method to permanently cure microprolactinomas, with long-term cure rates around 70 %. In this article, I will review the data on safety of DAs an on the effectiveness and safety of surgery, and I will make an argument that surgery should be offered as a possible therapy to microprolactinoma patients, provided that an experienced pituitary neurosurgeon is available.

Endoscopic transnasal transethmosphenoidal approach for pituitary tumors: assessment of technique and postoperative findings of nasal and paranasal cavities.

OBJECTIVE: Transnasal endoscopic surgery is the most common approach to removal of pituitary tumors. This study evaluated the transnasal transethmosphenoidal approach (TTES) in terms of its operative manipulability and the postoperative status of the paranasal cavities. METHODS: A total of 132 patients with pituitary tumors underwent surgery by one of the following three approaches: (1) bilateral TTES, in which the surgical procedures were performed via the bilateral paranasal cavities, (2) unilateral TTES, in which the procedures were performed via one side only, and (3) unilateral TTES and resection of the posterior portion in the nasal septum approach (RPS), which is a modification of approach (2) and enables performance of the procedures from both sides. RESULTS: The degree of freedom for the surgical procedures with each of the approaches decreased in the following order: bilateral TTES, unilateral TTES and RPS, and unilateral TTES. The postoperative CT images and endoscopic findings were good with each of the surgical approaches, but the incidences of olfactory disturbance and nasal dryness were significantly higher with the bilateral TTES compared with the unilateral TTES and RPS and the unilateral TTES. CONCLUSION: The unilateral TTES and RPS was for us most suitable approach of the three methods. In the case of advanced tumors, the bilateral TTES should be selected because it permits superior operative manipulability. Finally, the unilateral TTES is most appropriate for removal of tumors that are deviated to one side and localized within the sella.