Advertisement

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Published:October 18, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.026

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for BPH.

      Methods

      Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed comparing HoLEP, B-TURP, WVTT, and PUL for prostate size <80cc (index patient 1) and HoLEP and SP for prostate size >80cc (index patient 2). Model probabilities and utility values were drawn from the literature. Analysis was performed at a 5-year time horizon with extrapolation to a lifetime horizon. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 2021 Medicare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

      Results

      At 5 years, costs per patient for index patient 1 were $3292 (WVTT), $6532 (HoLEP), $6670 (B-TURP), and $10,257 (PUL). HoLEP resulted in the highest QALYs (4.66), followed by B-TURP (4.60), PUL (4.38), and WVTT (4.38). This translated to HoLEP being most cost-effective (ICER $11,847). For index patient 2, HoLEP was less costly ($6,585 vs $15,404) and more effective (4.654 vs 4.650) relative to SP. On sensitivity analysis for index patient 1, B-TURP became most cost-effective if cost of HoLEP increased two-fold or chronic stress incontinence following HoLEP increased ten-fold. When follow-up time was varied, WVTT was preferred at very short follow up (<1 year), and HoLEP became more strongly preferred with longer follow up.

      Conclusion

      At 5 years follow up, HoLEP is a cost-effective surgical treatment for BPH- independent of gland size.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Lerner LB
        • McVary KT
        • Barry MJ
        • et al.
        Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART I—initial work-up and medical management.
        J Urol. 2021; 206: 806-817
        • Lerner LB
        • McVary KT
        • Barry MJ
        • et al.
        Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART II—Surgical evaluation and treatment.
        J Urol. 2021; 206: 818-826
        • Lee YJ
        • Lee JW
        • Park J
        • et al.
        Nationwide incidence and treatment pattern of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Korea.
        Investig Clin Urol. 2016; 57: 424-430
        • Schroeck FR
        • Hollingsworth JM
        • Kaufman SR
        • et al.
        Population based trends in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 1837-1841
        • Malaeb BS
        • Yu X
        • McBean AM
        • et al.
        National trends in surgical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the United States (2000-2008).
        Urology. 2012; 79: 1111-1117
        • Cornu J-N
        • Ahyai S
        • Bachmann A
        • et al.
        A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 1066-1096
        • Saigal CS
        • Joyce G
        Economic costs of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the private sector.
        J Urol. 2005; 173: 1309-1313
        • Chughtai B
        • Rojanasarot S
        • Neeser K
        • et al.
        A comprehensive analysis of clinical, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of key treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        PLoS One. 2022; 17e0266824
        • DeWitt-Foy ME
        • Gill BC
        • Ulchaker JC
        Cost comparison of benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment options.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2019; 20: 45
        • Ulchaker JC
        • Martinson MS
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of six therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017; 10: 29-43
        • Erman A
        • Masucci L
        • Krahn MD
        • et al.
        Pharmacotherapy vs surgery as initial therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        BJU Int. 2018; 122: 879-888
        • DiSantostefano RL
        • Biddle AK
        • Lavelle JP
        The long-term cost effectiveness of treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2006; 24: 171-191
        • De Nunzio C
        • Lombardo R
        • Autorino R
        • et al.
        Contemporary monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: prospective assessment of complications using the Clavien system.
        Int Urol Nephrol. 2013; 45: 951-959
        • Elizabeth Arias: United States Life Tables
        Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. National Vital Statistics Report, Atlanta, GA2012: 1-68
        • Sanders GD
        • Neumann PJ
        • Basu A
        • et al.
        Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 1093-1103
        • Naspro R
        • Suardi N
        • Salonia A
        • et al.
        Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70g: 24-month follow-up.
        Eur Urol. 2006; 50: 563-568
        • Kuntz RM
        • Lehrich K
        Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm.:: a randomized prospective trial of 120 patients.
        J Urol. 2002; 168: 1465-1469
        • Salonia A
        • Suardi N
        • Naspro R
        • et al.
        Holmium laser enucleation versus open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an inpatient cost analysis.
        Urology. 2006; 68: 302-306
        • Montorsi F
        • Naspro R
        • Salonia A
        • et al.
        Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a 2-center, prospective, randomized trial in patients with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 1926-1929
        • Ahyai SA
        • Lehrich K
        • Kuntz RM
        Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial.
        Eur Urol. 2007; 52: 1456-1463
        • Gilling PJ
        • Wilson LC
        • King CJ
        • et al.
        Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: results at 7 years.
        BJU Int. 2012; 109: 408-411
        • Roehrborn CG
        • Barkin J
        • Gange SN
        • et al.
        Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study.
        Can J Urol. 2017; 24: 8802-8813
        • McVary KT
        • Gittelman MC
        • Goldberg KA
        • et al.
        Final 5-year outcomes of the multicenter randomized sham-controlled trial of a water vapor thermal therapy for treatment of moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        J Urol. 2021; 206: 715-724
        • McVary KT
        • Rogers T
        • Roehrborn CG
        Rezūm water vapor thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from randomized controlled study.
        Urology. 2019; 126: 171-179
        • Chen Y-Z
        • Lin W-R
        • Chow Y-C
        • et al.
        Analysis of risk factors of bladder neck contracture following transurethral surgery of prostate.
        BMC Urol. 2021; 21: 59
        • Elmansy HM
        • Kotb A
        • Elhilali MM
        Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: long-term durability of clinical outcomes and complication rates during 10 years of followup.
        J Urol. 2011; 186: 1972-1976
        • Kok ET
        • McDonnell J
        • Stolk EA
        • et al.
        The valuation of the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) for use in economic evaluations.
        Eur Urol. 2002; 42: 491-497
        • Neumann PJ
        • Cohen JT
        QALYs in 2018-advantages and concerns.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 2473-2474
        • Robles J
        • Pais V
        • Miller N
        Mind the gaps: adoption and underutilization of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in the United States from 2008 to 2014.
        J Endourol. 2020; 34: 770-776
        • DeSantis M
        • Marco CA
        Emergency medicine residency selection: factors influencing candidate decisions.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12: 559-561