Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system

BJU International

Volumn 117, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 930-939

  Basto, Marnique ^a,b,c   Sathianathen, Niranjan ^a   Te Marvelde, Luc ^d,e   Ryan, Shane ^a   Goad, Jeremy ^a,f   Lawrentschuk, Nathan ^a,g   Costello, Anthony J ^b,c,h   Moon, Daniel A ^a,c,h,i   Heriot, Alexander G ^a,b   Butler, Jim ^j   Murphy, Declan G ^a,b,c,h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c ROYAL MELBOURNE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^e CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTRE   (Australia)

^f ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^g Austin Hospital   (Germany)

^h EPWORTH HEALTHCARE   (Australia)

ⁱ CABRINI INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^j AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Australia; economic analysis; health technology assessment; patterns of care; prostate cancer; robotic prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; COST CONTROL; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGICAL INSTRUMENT; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVATE HOSPITAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PUBLIC HOSPITAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOT ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; VICTORIA; AGED; AUSTRALIA; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; ECONOMIC MODEL; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTUAL DATABASE; HOSPITALIZATION; LAPAROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; PUBLIC HEALTH; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AUSTRALIA; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMIC; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; PUBLIC HEALTH; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84946073811     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.13317     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Globocan. Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. Available at: http://globocaniarcfr/Pages/glossaryaspx-PREVALENCE, 2012. Accessed June 2013
2. Evans SM, Millar JL, Davis ID, et al. Patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria from 2008 to 2011. Med J Aust 2013; 198: 540-5
3. Frydenberg M, Giles GG, Mameghan H, et al. Prostate cancer in Victoria in 1993: patterns of reported management. Med J Aust 2000; 172: 270-4
4. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431-52
5. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1-313
6. Health Information and Quality Agency (HIQA). Health Technology Assessment of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Selected Surgical Procedures. Available at: http://www.hiqa.ie/healthcare/health-technology-assessment/assessments/robot-assisted-surgery2011. Accessed June 2013
7. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Robot-Assisted Surgery Compared with Open Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery: Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Analyses. Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/health-technology-assessment/publication/26822011. Accessed June 2013
8. Ont Health Technol Assess Service. Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gynecologic and Urologic Oncology: an Evidence-Based Analysis. Available at: http://www.hqontario.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev-robotic-surgery-20101220.pdf, 2010. Accessed June 2013
9. Bolenz C, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 316-24
10. Tilki D, Huland H, Graefen M,. Centralization and quality control of elective surgery improve outcome: aren't we ethically obliged to force the pace of creating high-volume centers? Eur Urol 2015; 68: 30-1
11. NICE. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg1752014. Accessed June 2013
12. Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle IW, Seigne JD,. The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 2008; 72: 1068-72
13. Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A,. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 598-606
14. Department of Health V, Australia. Activity Based Funding, 2013 edn. Department of Health, 2013. Available at: http://health.vic.gov.au/abf/index.htm. Accessed June 2013
15. Wood E, Bielby L, Hunt R, Peterson D, Roxby D, Westerman D,. Transfusing a unit of red cells: what does it really cost in Australia? Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand 2008
16. Murphy DG, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, Costello AJ,. Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1358-67
17. Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M, et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 521-31
18. Gardiner RA, Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, et al. A progress report on a prospective randomised trial of open and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 512-5
19. Hall RM, Linklater N, Coughlin G,. Robotic and open radical prostatectomy in the public health sector: cost comparison. ANZ J Surg 2014; 84: 477-80
20. Cancer Council Victoria. Cancer in Victoria: Statistics & Trends 2013. Available at: http://www.cancervic.org.au/downloads/cec/cancer-in-vic/CCV-statistics-trends-2013.pdf2014. Accessed December 2014
21. Weerakoon M, Papa N, Lawrentschuk N, et al. The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int 2015; 115 (Suppl 5): 50-6
22. Bhindi B, Mamdani M, Kulkarni GS, et al. Impact of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific antigen screening on prostate biopsy and cancer detection rates. J Urol 2015; 193: 1519-24
23. Basto M, te Marvelde L, Azer S, et al. Transition from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in the public sector in Victoria: a single-centre comparison of 100 consecutive cases. Internet J Urol 2014; 12: 1-6
24. Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 2010; 24: 2003-15
25. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P,. 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. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 1-15
26. Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA, et al. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1636-47
27. Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 1419-26
28. Wilson A, Marlow NE, Maddern GJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on patient outcome. ANZ J Surg 2010; 80: 24-9
29. Hashimoto T, Yoshioka K, Gondo T, et al. Learning curve and perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in 200 initial Japanese cases by a single surgeon. J Endourol 2013; 27: 1218-23
30. Nojiri Y, Okamura K, Tanaka Y, et al. Influence of hospital surgical volume of radical prostatectomy on quality of perioperative care. Int J Clin Oncol 2013; 18: 898-904
31. Trinh QD, Sun M, Kim SP, et al. The impact of hospital volume, residency, and fellowship training on perioperative outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2014; 32: 29.e13-20
32. Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 786-98
33. Evans SM, Millar JL, Frydenberg M, et al. Positive surgical margins: rate, contributing factors and impact on further treatment: findings from the Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int 2014; 114: 680-90
34. Trinh QD, Sun M, Sammon J, et al. Disparities in access to care at high-volume institutions for uro-oncologic procedures. Cancer 2012; 118: 4421-6
35. Eliyahu S, Roguin A, Kerner A, et al. Patient safety and outcomes from live case demonstrations of interventional cardiology procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5: 215-24