Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience

Oliveira, Renato Almeida Rosa de; Guimarães, Gustavo Cardoso; Mourão, Thiago Camelo; Favaretto, Ricardo L.; Santana, Thiago Borges Marques; Lopes, Ademar; Zéqui, Stênio de Cássio

doi:10.1007/s11701-020-01179-z

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 12 studies16–19 31–38 included in this review, 11 are CUAs. The characteristics of all studies are presented in table 1 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…High variability across clinical and healthcare settings was observed. Among those studies, three18 33 37 were conducted in Canada, two35 36 in Australia, one17 in USA, one16 in UK, two32 38 in Ireland and three19 31 34 in other countries. Ten studies17–19 32–38 compared RARP with ORP, 4 studies16 17 31 32 compared RARP with LRP and 1 study38 compared RARP versus routine care of mixed ORP and LRP.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among those studies, three18 33 37 were conducted in Canada, two35 36 in Australia, one17 in USA, one16 in UK, two32 38 in Ireland and three19 31 34 in other countries. Ten studies17–19 32–38 compared RARP with ORP, 4 studies16 17 31 32 compared RARP with LRP and 1 study38 compared RARP versus routine care of mixed ORP and LRP. Cooperberg et al 17 and an HTA report by Alberta Health in Canada33 additionally included other non-surgical treatments as comparators.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most (8 out of 12) of the studies16–19 32 33 36 37 were conducted from the payer’s perspective, with 2 studies19 35 taking a societal perspective, 1 study31 from a healthcare system perspective and 1 study34 from a hospital perspective. Regarding the time horizon, lifetime horizon was considered in two studies,17 32 5–10 years was used in seven studies,16 31 33–35 37 38 short-term time horizon of 1 year was used in two studies18 19 and one study36 did not report the time horizon. Three studies19 34 36 are observational-based modelling studies, and the rest are simulation-based analyses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

Song

Cheng

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesReview and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).DesignSystematic review.SettingPubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.ParticipantsCost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.InterventionsDifferent surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.ResultsTwelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost–utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.ConclusionsDespite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021246811.

show abstract

“…Of the 12 studies16–19 31–38 included in this review, 11 are CUAs. The characteristics of all studies are presented in table 1 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

Song

Cheng

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cost-effectiveness has been studied for robotic surgery in other subspecialties with conclusions varying greatly depending on region, hospital, and institution being analyzed. 35 , 36 , 37 With the market of robotic surgery soaring to $20 billion in 2021 from just $4 billion in 2014, 38 the impetus for a PRS-focused cost-effectiveness analysis is difficult to comprehend.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does plastic surgery need a rewiring? A survey and systematic review on robotic-assisted surgery

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK

Labban

Song

Becker³

et al. 2022

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience

Cited by 9 publications

References 55 publications

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

Does plastic surgery need a rewiring? A survey and systematic review on robotic-assisted surgery

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About