Prostatic Artery Embolization Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To compare the cost effectiveness of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with that of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of medically refractory benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis with Markov modeling was performed, comparing the clinical course after PAE with that after TURP for 3 years. Probabilities were obtained from the available literature, and costs were based on Medicare reimbursements and published cost analyses. Outcomes were measured using quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Statistical analyses included base case calculation, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and deterministic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the conclusion under different clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Base case calculation showed comparable outcomes (PAE, 2.845 QALY; TURP, 2.854 QALY), with a cost difference of $3,104 (PAE, $2,934; TURP, $6,038). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $360,249/QALY. PAE was dominant in 23.2% and more cost effective in 48.4% of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations. PAE was better if its recurrence risk was <20.4% per year and even when the TURP recurrence risk was assumed to be 0%. TURP would be more cost effective when its procedural cost was <$3,367 or the PAE procedural cost >$4,409. PAE remained cost effective when varying the risks and costs of the minor and major short-term or long-term adverse events of both procedures. TURP would be the better strategy if the utility of BPH recurrence was <0.85 QALY. CONCLUSIONS: PAE is a cost-effective strategy to treat medically refractory BPH, resulting in comparable health benefits at a lower cost than that of TURP even when accounting for extreme alterations in adverse events, costs, and recurrence rates.