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

• Published in: BMJ open 2022-09, Vol.12 (9), p.e058394-e058394
• Main Authors: Song, Chao, Cheng, Lucia, Li, Yanli, Kreaden, Usha, Snyder, Susan R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bias; Cancer surgery; Clinical outcomes; Cost analysis; Health Economics; Health technology assessment; Literature reviews; Medical equipment; Medical technology; Prostate cancer; Robotic surgery; surgery; Systematic review; Urological surgery; urology
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058394

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.