The past decade has witnessed a host of technologic improvements in prostate cancer therapy. The three major modalities offered in most managed care plans include radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and interstitial brachytherapy (seed implant). Continued technologic advancement has led to incremental improvements in the safety and effectiveness of each modality. However, these improvements have led to a significant increase in the cost of treatment.
The past decade has witnessed a host of technologic improvements in prostate cancer therapy. The three major modalities offered in most managed care plans include radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and interstitial brachytherapy (seed implant). Continued technologic advancement has led to incremental improvements in the safety and effectiveness of each modality. However, these improvements have led to a significant increase in the cost of treatment.
The different treatment modalities have been variably affected by this cost increase. Robotic tools such as the da Vinci surgical system allow the surgeon to perform a radical prostatectomy with small incisions and unmatched precision. This improvement in technique has been associated with a cost increase compared to traditional open surgery and conventional laparoscopy.[1,2] Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) permits more accurate targeting and prostatic dose escalation, while minimizing radiation dose to the bladder and rectum, but with the use of this novel technique, the cost of EBRT has skyrocketed.[1,3,4] Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) as well as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are other emerging technologies that are also contributing to this increase in cost.
This increased cost of newer treatment modalities has to be weighed against competing interests. Managed care organizations may decide that the increased cost of newer therapies is not justified by the moderate improvements in outcome they produce. While this conclusion may seem reasonable from a societal perspective, it may conflict with the physician's imperative to fully inform patients under his care of the treatments that comprise the current standard of care, regardless of the economic arrangements under which he practices. Failure to offer managed care patients techniques within the standard of care is not only unethical, but may have costly legal ramifications. Practitioners involved in such situations could face legal action by patients who are not cured or who otherwise suffer complications that might have been avoided with newer technology or treatment modalities within the standard of care.
For example, as clinicians at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System and Group Health Cooperative active in the treatment of prostate cancer, we face stark choices in keeping up with technologic change because of the financial constraints inherent in our organizations. Our purpose in writing this article is to summarize current clinical, financial, and legal issues raised by recent technologic improvements. Clinicians and administrators alike must navigate a course that maintains a defensible standard of care within the confines of a limited budget while confronting the reality of rapidly rising health-care costs.
Radical Prostatectomy
Radical prostatectomy evolved from traditional open to conventional laparoscopic to robotic surgery in the course of 15 years. Both the academic and private urologic communities have embraced robotic surgery. Most centers purchase the robot. Theoretical advantages of this technology include less invasive surgery, less blood loss, quicker hospital discharge, and quicker recovery time, which should translate into less lost wages on the part of the patient. However, comparison of length of hospital stay in one large series revealed no difference between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies.[5]
There is also a widely held belief that this technologic breakthrough leads to less incontinence and better potency preservation. For instance, one study asserted that postoperative urinary continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was as high as 90%.[6] In one questionnaire-based analysis of outcomes after robotic radical prostatectomy with or without nerve-sparing and prostatic fascia–sparing techniques, investigators reported that 97% of the patients who underwent this procedure could have an erection adequate for intercourse, compared to 74% of the patients who underwent conventional open prostatectomy.[7] These percentages for robotic surgery are favorable; however, randomized comparisons of outcomes between robot-assisted vs conventional radical prostatectomies have not been performed.
As robotic surgery becomes standard in the community, hospital administrators will have increasing difficulty attracting oncologic surgeons if the robotic tools are unavailable in their facilities. Most importantly, patients themselves are beginning to push for robotic technology due to encouragement from private and public information sources including TV, print advertisements, and the Internet.
Although it may offer some clinical advantages, robotic surgery has increased the cost of prostatectomy substantially. Based on Medicare reimbursement for the year 2007, the total allowable reimbursement for a radical prostatectomy as an inpatient procedure is approximately $17,000.[3,4] In contrast, the robot has a $1 million purchase cost, a $100,000 to $200,000 annual maintenance fee, and approximately $2,000 to $3,000 in disposables per case.[1,8] The costs for the robot increase the cost of prostatectomy from approximately $17,000 to $25,000/patient (Figure 1).
The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.
1. Wallner KM, Merrick G, Blasko J, et al: Cost, in Prostate Brachytherapy Made Complicated, 3rd ed, pp 27.1-27.20, Seattle, SmartMedicine Press, 2007.
2. Mouraviev V, Nosnik I, Sun L, et al: Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: A single-institution experience. Urology 69:311-314, 2007.
3. Trailblazer Health Enterprises, LLC: Medicare home page. Available at www.trailblazerhealth.com/medicare.aspx. Accessed August 23, 2007.
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: CMS programs and information. Available at www.cms.hhs.gov/. Accessed August 23, 2007.
5. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, et al: Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 177:929-931, 2007.
6. Carlsson S, Nilsson A, Wiklund PN: Postoperative urinary continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40:103-107, 2006.
7. Dalkin BL: Re: Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: A questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol 175:2367-2368 (incl author reply), 2006.
8. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT: The new economics of radical prostatectomy: Cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol 172:1431-1435, 2004.
9. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Smith LG, et al: Preliminary results of a randomized radiotherapy dose-escalation study comparing 70 Gy with 78 Gy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:3904-3911, 2000.
10. Kuban DA, Thames HD, Levy LB, et al: Long-term multi-institutional analysis of stage T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy in the PSA era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:915-928, 2003.
11. Herstein AW, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al: There is a wide range of predictive dosimetric factors for I-125 and Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy Am J Clin Oncol. In press.
12. Papagikos MA, Deguzman AF, Rossi PJ, et al: Dosimetric quantifiers for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy: Is V(100) superior to D(90)? Brachytherapy 4:252-258, 2005.
13. Stock RG, Stone NN, Cesaretti JA, et al: Biologically effective dose values for prostate brachytherapy: Effects on PSA failure and posttreatment biopsy results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64:527-533, 2006.
14. Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM, et al: Brachytherapy in men aged < or = 54 years with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 98:324-328, 2006.
15. Wallner KM, Merrick G, Blasko J, et al: Design, in Prostate Brachytherapy Made Complicated, 3rd ed, pp 13.11-13.26. Seattle, SmartMedicine Press, 2007:13.11-13.26.
16. Merrick GS, Butler WM: Modified uniform seed loading for prostate brachytherapy: Rationale, design, and evaluation. Tech Urol 6:78-84, 2000.
17. Wallner K, Roy J, Harrison L: Dosimetry guidelines to minimize urethral and rectal morbidity following transperineal I-125 prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:465-471, 1995.
18. Wallner K, Merrick G, Sutlief S, et al: High-dose regions versus likelihood of cure after prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:170-174, 2005.
19. Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Butler WM: Permanent interstitial brachytherapy for the management of carcinoma of the prostate gland. J Urol 169:1643-1652, 2003.
20. Dattoli M, Wallner K, True L, et al: Long-term prostate cancer control using palladium-103 brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in patients with a high likelihood of extracapsular cancer extension. Urology 69:334-337, 2007.
21. Stock RG, Stone NN, Tabert A, et al: A dose-response study for I-125 prostate implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:101-108, 1998.
22. Herstein A, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al: I-125 versus Pd-103 for low-risk prostate cancer: Long-term morbidity outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial. Cancer J 11:385-389, 2005.
23. Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al: 20 Gy versus 44 Gy supplemental beam radiation with Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy: Preliminary biochemical outcomes from a prospective randomized multi-center trial. Radiother Oncol 75:307-310, 2005.
24. Mueller A, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al: Perirectal seeds as a risk factor for prostate brachytherapy-related rectal bleeding. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:1047-1052, 2004.
25. Snyder KM, Stock RG, Hong SM, et al: Defining the risk of developing grade 2 proctitis following 125I prostate brachytherapy using a rectal dose-volume histogram analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:335-341, 2001.
26. Waterman FM, Dicker AP: Probability of late rectal morbidity in 125I prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:342-353, 2003.
27. Han BH, Wallner KE: Dosimetric and radiographic correlates to prostate brachytherapy-related rectal complications. Int J Cancer 96:372-378, 2001.
28. Hilts M, Spadinger I, Keyes M: Comparison of methods for calculating rectal dose after 125I prostate brachytherapy implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:775-785, 2002.
29. Sherertz T, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al: Factors predictive of rectal bleeding after 103Pd and supplemental beam radiation for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 3:130-135, 2004.
30. Tran A, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al: Rectal fistulas after prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63:150-154, 2005.
31. Jordan GH, Lynch DF, Warden SS, et al: Major rectal complications following interstitial implantation of 125Iodine for carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 134:1212-1214, 1985.
32. Theodorescu D, Gillenwater JY, Koutrouvelis PG: Prostatourethral-rectal fistula after prostate brachytherapy. Cancer 89:2085-2091, 2000.
33. Mayadev JW, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al: Prostate brachytherapy-related rectal fistulas: Tracking, analyzing, and preventing a rare complication. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. In press.
34. Elliott K, Wallner K, Merrick G, et al: Medical malpractice of prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 3:231-236, 2004.
35. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al: The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1171-1177, 2007.
