4.5 Article

Evaluating the cost of surveillance for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an analysis based on risk categories

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 10, Pages 2059-2065

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2550-x

Keywords

Bladder cancer; Non-muscle invasive; Costs; Markov model; Surveillance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a biologically heterogeneous disease and is one of the most expensive malignancies to treat on a per patient basis. In part, this high cost is attributed to the need for long-term surveillance. We sought to perform an economic analysis of surveillance strategies to elucidate cumulative costs for the management of NMIBC. Methods A Markov model was constructed to determine the average 5-year costs for the surveillance of patients with NMIBC. Patients were stratified into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups based on the EORTC risk calculator to determine recurrence and progression rates according to each category. The index patient was a compliant 65-year-old male. A total of four health states were utilized in the Markov model: no evidence of disease, recurrence, progression and cystectomy, and death. Results Cumulative costs of care over a 5-year period were $52,125 for low-risk, $ 146,250 for intermediate-risk, and $366,143 for high-risk NMIBC. The primary driver of cost was progression to muscle-invasive disease requiring definitive therapy, contributing to 81% and 92% of overall cost for intermediate- and high-risk disease. Although low- risk tumors have a high likelihood of 5-year recurrence, the overall cost contribution of recurrence was 8%, whereas disease progression accounted for 71%. Conclusion Although protracted surveillance cystoscopy contributes to the expenditures associated with NMIBC, progression increases the overall cost of care across all three patient risk groups and most notably for intermediate- and high-risk disease patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available