A decision support model for cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer

Abstract

Objective. This study aimed to develop a probabilistic decision support model to calculate the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between radical prostatectomy and watchful waiting for different patient groups. Material and methods. A randomized trial (SPCG-4) provided most data for this study. Data on survival, costs and quality of life were inputs in a decision analysis, and a decision support model was developed. The model can generate cost-effectiveness information on subgroups of patients with different characteristics. Results. Age was the most important independent factor explaining cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness value varied from 21 026 Swedish kronor (SEK) to 858 703 SEK for those aged 65 to 75 years, depending on Gleason scores and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. Information from the decision support model can support decision makers in judging whether or not radical prostatectomy (RP) should be used to treat a specific patient group. Conclusions. The cost-effectiveness ratio for RP varies with age, Gleason scores, and PSA values. Assuming a threshold value of 200 000 SEK per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, for patients aged ≤70 years the treatment was always cost-effective, except at age 70, Gleason 0–4 and PSA ≤10. Using the same threshold value at age 75, Gleason 7–9 (regardless of PSA) and Gleason 5–6 (with PSA >20) were cost-effective. Hence, RP was not perceived to be cost-effective in men aged 75 years with low Gleason and low PSA. Higher threshold values for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer could be discussed.

Key Words::

• cost-effectiveness
• decision support
• prostate cancer
• radical prostatectomy
• randomized trial
• watchful waiting

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Hans Garmo and Martin Henriksson for contributing to this article.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and the writing of this paper.