An economic analysis of conservative management versus active treatment for men with localized prostate cancer
An economic analysis.pdf (298.7Kb)
Access StatusFull text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time ("dark deposit"). For more information on dark deposits, see our FAQ.
Perlroth, Daniella J.
Goldman, Dana P.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationPerlroth, Dana J., Jay Bhattacharya, Dana P. Goldman, and Alan M. Garber. 2012. An economic analysis of conservative management versus active treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. JNCI Monographs 2012, no. 45:250-257.
AbstractComparative effectiveness research suggests that conservative management (CM) strategies are no less effective than active initial treatment for many men with localized prostate cancer. We estimate longer-term costs of initial management strategies and potential US health expenditure savings by increased use of conservative management for men with localized prostate cancer. Five-year total health expenditures attributed to initial management strategies for localized prostate cancer were calculated using commercial claims data from 1998 to 2006, and savings were estimated from a US population health-care expenditure model. Our analysis finds that patients receiving combinations of active treatments have the highest additional costs over conservative management at $63 500, followed by $48 550 for intensity-modulated radiation therapy, $37 500 for primary androgen deprivation therapy, and $28 600 for brachytherapy. Radical prostatectomy ($15 200) and external beam radiation therapy ($18 900) were associated with the lowest costs. The population model estimated that US health expenditures could be lowered by 1) use of initial CM over all active treatment ($2.9–3.25 billion annual savings), 2) shifting patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy to CM ($680–930 million), 3) foregoing primary androgen deprivation therapy($555 million), 4) reducing the use of adjuvant androgen deprivation in addition to local therapies ($630 million), and 5) using single treatments rather than combination local treatment ($620–655 million). In conclusion, we find that all active treatments are associated with higher longer-term costs than CM. Substantial savings, representing up to 30% of total costs, could be realized by adopting CM strategies, including active surveillance, for initial management of men with localized prostate cancer.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11595670
- HCA Scholarly Articles