Cost-utility analysis of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer compared to open radical cystectomy in the United Kingdom.

backgroundBladder cancer is the tenth most common cancer in the United Kingdom. Currently, open radical cystectomy (ORC) is the gold standard. Due to the risk of complications and a 2.3-8% mortality rate1, there is growing interest in the use of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). The aim of this study is to perform a cost-utility analysis, comparing RARC to ORC for bladder cancer patients from the perspective of the National Health Service England.

methodsA three-stage decision tree: surgery, post-surgery transfusions and complications, in a 90-day time horizon, was produced to simulate possible pathways of patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated based on data derived from current literature. Multiple univariate sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate influences of varying costs of RARC and ORC on the ICER.

resultsThe ICER for RARC compared to ORC resulted in £25,536/QALY. At the lower threshold of £20,000/QALY, RARC resulted in a negative NMB (£-4,843.32) and at the upper threshold of £30,000/QALY, a positive NMB (£624.61) compared to ORC. Threshold analysis showed that the intervention costs of £13,497 and £14,403 are met at the lower and upper threshold respectively. The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the intervention costs of RARC or ORC, and the probabilities of complications, had the greatest impact on the ICER.

conclusionAs the resultant ICER did not fall below the £20,000/QALY threshold, our study did not provide a definitive recommendation for RARC for bladder cancer. Negative values for the NMB at the lower threshold indicated the intervention was not feasible from a cost perspective. At the upper threshold of £30,000/QALY, this situation was reversed. The intervention became cost-effective. Therefore, further research is needed to justify the intervention.