ArticlePloS one2025
Costs of non-metastatic prostate cancer treatment among privately insured men in the United States.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using a Community-Embedded Screening and Navigation Framework to Engage High-Risk Men in Prostate Cancer Early Detection: Five Years of the Men's Health Awareness Summit in Oklahoma.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Direct and Indirect Costs of Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Assessment of Economic and Social Impact.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur objective was to quantify the cumulative total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for 3 non-metastatic prostate cancer treatment modalities: radiation, surgery, and conservative management at intervals of 1-, 3-, and 5-years post-diagnosis. We predicted these cumulative costs for a typical patient to improve cost transparency, facilitate conversations about potential costs, and to help advance non-metastatic prostate cancer cost evaluation.
methodsWe used Merative™ MarketScan® Commercial Database data from 2007-2020. The cumulative total costs evaluated from the healthcare sector perspective were patient, clinician, and system/facility costs. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the sociodemographic characteristics of the cohort and a multivariable regression model to estimate the association between each treatment option (radiation, surgery, conservative management) and costs with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to account for potential selection bias. We then predicted total and OOP costs defined by sample mode characteristics.
resultsThis cohort included 74,324 patients. Cumulative total and OOP costs were significantly higher for radiation (p < 0.0001) and for surgery (p < 0.0001) at Years 1, 3, and 5 compared to conservative management. For a typical patient, total cumulative cost estimates for conservative management at Years 1/3/5 were: $15,896/$33,436/$48,110 and the cumulative patient OOP costs were: $2,003/$4,540/$6,621. The cumulative total costs for surgery at Years 1/3/5 were: $38,348/$49,424/$60,885 and the cumulative OOP costs were: $2,980/$5,255/$7,221. The cumulative total costs for radiation at Years 1/3/5 were: $65,397/$77,859/$91,497 and the cumulative OOP costs were: $3,151/$5,481/$7,504.
conclusionsFor all years, the cumulative costs of radiation were highest, followed by surgery and conservative management, respectively. Radiation as the first treatment modality had higher costs compared to surgery and conservative management at the 3 time points. IMPACT: These cost estimates support non-metastatic prostate cancer treatment related cost transparency. These estimates can help researchers evaluate costs and facilitate patient-clinician cost conversations.
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.