Observational studyDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Treatment costs of localized prostate cancer in Germany : Economic results from the HAROW observational study].
Observational study in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- [Noninvasive treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer in elderly patients-results of the HAROW study].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2020Article
- A comprehensive analysis of cost of an active surveillance cohort compared to radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2019Article
- Health services research in German radiation oncology: new opportunities to advance cancer care.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. For medical treatment of PCa, a number of therapies are available. The economic consequences associated with these individual treatment options in routine care in Germany are unclear so far.
methodsThe present analysis was based on the Germany-wide HAROW observational study, which was conducted from 2008-2013. During this study, all participating physicians and involved patients reported and documented individual health care resource consumption. These data were evaluated in monetary terms stratified by treatment regime (hormone therapy, HT; active surveillance, AS; radiotherapy, RT; radical prostatectomy, RP; watchful waiting, WW).
resultsOverall, the data of 2672 patients were available for analysis. Based on the observational study design, the included patient groups were heterogeneous in their baseline characteristics. The annual total costs from the societal perspective were the largest for patient undergoing RP (9254 €; 95 % CI 8353-10,154), mainly driven by the costs for the initial hospital stay for surgery. HT, AS, RT, and WW seem to be comparable in terms of direct costs, ranging from 805 € (95 % CI 154-1455) for WW up to 1115 € (95 % CI 826-1405) for RT. The highest indirect costs were observed for patients receiving RT (3928 €; 95 % CI 0-10,675), which can be justified by the frequent incapacity to work in this patient group.
conclusionThe treatment of prostate cancer can lead to significant economic follow-up costs which vary greatly depending on the type of treatment. The analysis indicates a need for the implementation of a long-term health economic study in the future, which will be more suitable to show treatment-specific differences in the temporal occurrence of costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27822603What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.