ArticleEuropean urology open science2026
Cost-utility of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP Versus Standard RARP in Men with Localised Prostate Cancer in the UK.
Article in European urology open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a standard first-line curative treatment for localised prostate cancer but carries risks of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. The NeuroSAFE technique provides pathological assessment to optimise nerve-sparing whilst avoiding positive surgical margins. Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP compared with standard RARP. Design setting and participants: A within-trial economic evaluation with a 12-month time horizon was conducted alongside NeuroSAFE-PROOF, a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial. Participants were patients with a diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer deemed suitable to undergo RARP, good erectile function without medical erectile function assistance, and no previous prostate cancer treatment. No age limits were applied. Intervention: The intervention is the NeuroSAFE-guided RARP. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Costs were assessed from NHS and societal perspectives using patient-level data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured using EQ-5D-5L. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefits were estimated. Uncertainty was captured via bootstrapping, missing data were addressed through multiple imputation, and Monte Carlo simulations were undertaken to assess robustness. Results and limitations: Among 407 randomised patients (NeuroSAFE: 204; standard RARP: 203), NeuroSAFE increased mean total cost (by £827 and £1,000 from NHS and societal perspectives, respectively) and QALYs (by 0.03). ICERs were £26,195/QALY (NHS) and £31,666/QALY (societal). Cost-effectiveness probabilities were 53% and 56% (NHS) and 48% and 56% (societal) at the lower and upper UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Limitations include substantial uncertainty around estimates, missing data, and potential recall bias from retrospectively collected data. Findings reflect short-term, within-trial estimates and should be interpreted accordingly. Conclusions and Patient summary: NeuroSAFE-guided RARP increased costs and generated modest QALY gains on average. ICERs were within the upper UK threshold, although substantial uncertainty remained. These findings reflect 12-month within-trial economic outcomes and should not be interpreted as evidence of long-term cost-effectiveness.
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.