ArticleWorld journal of urology2019
A comprehensive analysis of cost of an active surveillance cohort compared to radical prostatectomy as primary treatment for prostate cancer.
Article in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world Evidence to Estimate Prostate Cancer Costs for First-line Treatment or Active Surveillance.European urology open science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionActive surveillance (AS) seems to be a cost-effective strategy. However, most publications are based on simulation models of theoretical cohorts, and long-term implications are not usually considered.
objectiveTo assess the real cost differences of two cohorts of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with AS or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in a public health system. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients diagnosed from 2005 to 2009 were included in an AS program (Group 1) or treated with LRP at diagnosis (Group 2), with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Actual costs for each patient were calculated on an individual basis: Group 1: semiannual PSA measurements and repeat biopsies are scheduled every 1-3 years. Costs of outpatient clinic visits were calculated, as well as all tests required for monitoring or active treatment. Group 2: costs of the procedure, emergency visits, re-admissions and outpatient clinic visits were calculated, as well as costs of oncological salvage therapies or functional surgical procedures.
resultsOut of 151 men diagnosed with low-risk PC, 54 (35.8%) were included in an AS (Group 1) and 97 (64.2%) were submitted to LRP (Group 2). Mean follow-up for both groups was 6.5 years (SD 1.8) and 6.7 years (SD 1.4), respectively, p = 0.49. Group 1 had a total cost per patient of 2970.47€. Group 2 had a total cost per patient of 5694.06€.
conclusionsAS was associated with cost-saving over LRP. This cost reduction of AS in the management of low-risk PCa is based on the accounting of real costs of individual patients and confirms previously published estimation-based reports.
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.