ArticleBMC cancer2017
The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training for localized prostate cancer under active surveillance: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- The Cost Effectiveness of Elective Surgical Procedures with Longer NHS Waiting Lists: A Targeted Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Patients with Small Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors at a High-Volume Sarcoma Center.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- Tumor characteristics, treatments, and survival outcomes in prostate cancer patients with a PSA level < 4 ng/ml: a population-based study.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness and Quality of Life Analysis of Different Approaches to the Management and Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Feasibility of in-office MRI-targeted partial gland cryoablation for prostate cancer: an IDEAL stage 2A study.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2020Article
- Exercise duRing Active Surveillance for prostatE cancer-the ERASE trial: a study protocol of a phase II randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2019Article
- 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
- Active surveillance for prostate and thyroid cancers: evolution in clinical paradigms and lessons learned.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for localised prostate cancer in New Zealand. Active surveillance was introduced to prevent overtreatment and reduce costs while preserving the option of radical prostatectomy. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy.
methodsMarkov models were constructed to estimate the life-time cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer patients aged 45-70 years, using national datasets in New Zealand and published studies including the SPCG-4 study. This study was from the perspective of the Ministry of Health in New Zealand.
resultsRadical prostatectomy is less costly than active surveillance in men aged 45-55 years with low risk localised prostate cancer, but more costly for men aged 60-70 years. Scenario analyses demonstrated significant uncertainty as to the most cost-effective option in all age groups because of the unavailability of good quality of life data for men under active surveillance. Uncertainties around the likelihood of having radical prostatectomy when managed with active surveillance also affect the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance against radical prostatectomy.
conclusionsActive surveillance is less likely to be cost-effective compared to radical prostatectomy for younger men diagnosed with low risk localised prostate cancer. The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to radical prostatectomy is critically dependent on the 'trigger' for radical prostatectomy and the quality of life in men on active surveillance. Research on the latter would be beneficial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.