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

Objectives Review 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). Design Systematic review. Setting PubMed, 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. Participants Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review. Interventions Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP. Primary and secondary outcome measures A 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. Results Twelve 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. Conclusions Despite 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 number CRD42021246811.

[1]  M. Sandri,et al.  Patient surgical satisfaction after da Vinci® single-port and multi-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: propensity score-matched analysis , 2021, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[2]  J. Severens,et al.  Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews With Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes: An ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report. , 2021, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[3]  Szu-Yuan Wu,et al.  Latest Comprehensive Medical Resource Consumption in Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic and Traditional Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study , 2021, Cancers.

[4]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2021, BMJ.

[5]  K. Badani,et al.  Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Costs and Use Associated With Open vs Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy , 2021, JAMA network open.

[6]  G. Guimarães,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience , 2021, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[7]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic vs open simple prostatectomy in the modern robotic era: results from the National Inpatient Sample , 2020, BJU International.

[8]  G. Blackhouse,et al.  Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada. , 2020, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[9]  P. Dasgupta,et al.  Workplace absenteeism amongst patients undergoing open vs. robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, and partial colectomy , 2020, Surgical Endoscopy.

[10]  B. Müller-Stich,et al.  Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2020, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  P. Dasgupta,et al.  Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Robotic Cancer Surgery in US Adults , 2020, JAMA network open.

[12]  P. Stattin,et al.  Population‐based, nationwide registration of prostatectomies in Sweden , 2019, Journal of surgical oncology.

[13]  J. Kim,et al.  National practice patterns and direct medical costs for prostate cancer in Korea across a 10 year period: a nationwide population-based study using a national health insurance database , 2019, BMC Health Services Research.

[14]  Prashanth Rawla,et al.  Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer , 2019, World journal of oncology.

[15]  J. Barkun,et al.  Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery , 2018, Annals of surgery.

[16]  Raj Persad,et al.  A Multicentre Study of 5-year Outcomes Following Focal Therapy in Treating Clinically Significant Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer , 2018, European urology.

[17]  H. Samaratunga,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. , 2018, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  Steven L. Chang,et al.  Systematic Review of the Volume-Outcome Relationship for Radical Prostatectomy. , 2017, European urology focus.

[19]  C. Fiori,et al.  Five-year Outcomes for a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. , 2016, European urology focus.

[20]  K. Rha,et al.  Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Investigative and clinical urology.

[21]  Michael Drummond,et al.  Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project. , 2017, Health economics.

[22]  Michael Drummond,et al.  Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project. , 2017, Health economics.

[23]  Claire Rothery,et al.  Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs. , 2017, Health economics.

[24]  Vivian Ng,et al.  Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment. , 2017, Ontario health technology assessment series.

[25]  Xinghuan Wang,et al.  Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Surgical Endoscopy.

[26]  F. Cots,et al.  Economic evaluation of treatments for patients with localized prostate cancer in Europe: a systematic review , 2016, BMC Health Services Research.

[27]  Robert A Gardiner,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study , 2016, The Lancet.

[28]  David Hughes,et al.  Health resource use after robot‐assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy , 2016, BJU international.

[29]  Supoj Ratchanon,et al.  A cost-utility analysis of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in men with localized prostate cancer in Thailand. , 2015, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[30]  S. Chevalier,et al.  Clinical Management and Burden of Prostate Cancer: A Markov Monte Carlo Model , 2014, PloS one.

[31]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Population‐based determinants of radical prostatectomy operative time , 2014, BJU international.

[32]  Raju Thomas,et al.  Learning curve assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open-surgery controls from the premier perspective database. , 2014, Journal of endourology.

[33]  Conor Teljeur,et al.  USING PREDICTION INTERVALS FROM RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSES IN AN ECONOMIC MODEL , 2014, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[34]  Jim C Hu,et al.  A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. , 2013, European urology.

[35]  Luke Vale,et al.  Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. , 2013, European urology.

[36]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost‐utility analysis , 2013, BJU international.

[37]  W. Redekop,et al.  The Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices , 2013, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

[38]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[39]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[40]  H. Lehmann,et al.  Active surveillance versus surgery for low risk prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[41]  D. Mant,et al.  Systematic review and validation of prediction rules for identifying children with serious infections in emergency departments and urgent-access primary care. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[42]  M. Borre,et al.  A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy , 2011, Journal of medical economics.

[43]  L. Su,et al.  Technical advances in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy , 2009, Therapeutic advances in urology.

[44]  Michael Drummond,et al.  Economic evaluation for devices and drugs--same or different? , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[45]  Cynthia P Iglesias,et al.  Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different? , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[46]  M. Drummond,et al.  Assessing the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Medical Devices and Drugs : Are They That Different ? , 2009 .

[47]  E. Jordan,et al.  Review of a decision by the Medical Services Advisory Committee based on health technology assessment of an emerging technology: The case for remotely assisted radical prostatectomy , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[48]  H. D. de Vet,et al.  Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria , 2005, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.