Real-world Evidence to Estimate Prostate Cancer Costs for First-line Treatment or Active Surveillance

• Main Authors: Christopher J. Magnani, Nicolas Bievre, Laurence C. Baker, James D. Brooks, Douglas W. Blayney, Tina Hernandez-Boussard
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-01-01
• Series: European Urology Open Science
• Subjects: Prostate cancer treatment cost; Active surveillance; High value care; Medicare Fee Schedule; Electronic health records; Calculated cost per day
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666168320363679

Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Changes in screening guidelines, adoption of active surveillance (AS), and implementation of high-cost technologies have changed treatment costs. Traditional cost-effectiveness studies rely on clinical trial protocols unlikely to capture actual practice behavior, and existing studies use data predating new technologies. Real-world evidence reflecting these changes is lacking. Objective: To assess real-world costs of first-line prostate cancer management. Design, setting, and participants: We used clinical electronic health records for 2008–2018 linked with the California Cancer Registry and the Medicare Fee Schedule to assess costs over 24 or 60 mo following diagnosis. We identified surgery or radiation treatments with structured methods, while we used both structured data and natural language processing to identify AS. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Our results are risk-stratified calculated cost per day (CCPD) for first-line management, which are independent of treatment duration. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare unadjusted CCPD while analysis of covariance log-linear models adjusted estimates for age and Charlson comorbidity. Results and limitations: In 3433 patients, surgery (54.6%) was more common than radiation (22.3%) or AS (23.0%). Two years following diagnosis, AS ($2.97/d) was cheaper than surgery ($5.67/d) or radiation ($9.34/d) in favorable disease, while surgery ($7.17/d) was cheaper than radiation ($16.34/d) for unfavorable disease. At 5 yr, AS ($2.71/d) remained slightly cheaper than surgery ($2.87/d) and radiation ($4.36/d) in favorable disease, while for unfavorable disease surgery ($4.15/d) remained cheaper than radiation ($10.32/d). Study limitations include information derived from a single healthcare system and costs based on benchmark Medicare estimates rather than actual payment exchanges. Patient summary: Active surveillance was cheaper than surgery (−47.6%) and radiation (−68.2%) at 2 yr for favorable-risk disease, while savings diminished by 5 yr (−5.6% and −37.8%, respectively). Surgery cost less than radiation for unfavorable risk for both intervals (−56.1% and −59.8%, respectively).