Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Botteman MF, Pashos CL, Redaelli A, Laskin B, Hauser R (2003) The health economics of bladder cancer: a comprehensive review of the published literature. PharmacoEconomics 21:1315–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sievert KD, Amend B, Nagele U, Schilling D, Bedke J, Horstmann M et al (2009) Economic aspects of bladder cancer: what are the benefits and costs? World J Urol 27:295–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Casilla-Lennon MM, Choi SK, Deal AM, Bensen JT, Narang G, Filippou P et al (2018) Financial toxicity among patients with bladder cancer: reasons for delay in care and effect on quality of life. J Urol 199:1166–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mossanen M, Smith AB (2018) Addressing financial toxicity: the role of the urologist. J Urol 200:43–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mossanen M, Gore JL (2014) The burden of bladder cancer care: direct and indirect costs. Curr Opin Urol 24:487–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang Y, Mossanen M, Chang SL (2018) Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in urologic oncology using large administrative databases. Urol Oncol 36:213–219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang Y, Denton BT, Nielsen ME (2013) Comparison of surveillance strategies for low-risk bladder cancer patients. Med Decis Mak 33:198–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kulkarni GS, Finelli A, Fleshner NE, Jewett MA, Lopushinsky SR, Alibhai SM (2007) Optimal management of high-risk T1G3 bladder cancer: a decision analysis. PLoS Med 4:e284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Avritscher EB, Cooksley CD, Grossman HB, Sabichi AL, Hamblin L, Dinney CP et al (2006) Clinical model of lifetime cost of treating bladder cancer and associated complications. Urology 68:549–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sylvester RJ, van der Meijden AP, Oosterlinck W, Witjes JA, Bouffioux C, Denis L et al (2006) Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: a combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol 49:466–477 (discussion 75-7)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Rhijn BW, Burger M, Lotan Y, Solsona E, Stief CG, Sylvester RJ et al (2009) Recurrence and progression of disease in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: from epidemiology to treatment strategy. Eur Urol 56:430–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Woldu SL, Bagrodia A, Lotan Y (2017) Guideline of guidelines: non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. BJU Int 119:371–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Millan-Rodriguez F, Chechile-Toniolo G, Salvador-Bayarri J, Palou J, Algaba F, Vicente-Rodriguez J (2000) Primary superficial bladder cancer risk groups according to progression, mortality and recurrence. J Urol 164:680–684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Arias E, Heron M, Xu J (2017) United States life tables, 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep 66:1–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hogan C, Lunney J, Gabel J, Lynn J (2001) Medicare beneficiaries’ costs of care in the last year of life. Health Aff (Millwood) 20:188–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Riley GF, Lubitz JD (2010) Long-term trends in medicare payments in the last year of life. Health Serv Res 45:565–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer prices indexes

  18. Svatek RS, Hollenbeck BK, Holmang S, Lee R, Kim SP, Stenzl A et al (2014) The economics of bladder cancer: costs and considerations of caring for this disease. Eur Urol 66(2):253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mossanen M, Krasnow RE, Lipsitz SR, Preston MA, Kibel AS, Ha A et al (2018) Associations of specific postoperative complications with costs after radical cystectomy. BJU Int 121:428–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mossanen M, Brown JC, Schrag D (2018) Well-being beyond the bladder. How do we improve the overall health of patients with bladder cancer? BJU Int 121:489–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bassett JC, Gore JL, Kwan L, Ritch CR, Barocas DA, Penson DF et al (2014) Knowledge of the harms of tobacco use among patients with bladder cancer. Cancer 120:3914–3922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Crivelli JJ, Xylinas E, Kluth LA, Rieken M, Rink M, Shariat SF (2014) Effect of smoking on outcomes of urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 65:742–754

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bassett JC, Gore JL, Chi AC, Kwan L, McCarthy W, Chamie K et al (2012) Impact of a bladder cancer diagnosis on smoking behavior. J Clin Oncol 30:1871–1878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rink M, Crivelli JJ, Shariat SF, Chun FK, Messing EM, Soloway MS (2015) Smoking and bladder cancer: a systematic review of risk and outcomes. Eur Urol Focus 1:17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mossanen M, Preston MA (2017) Quality improvement efforts in radical cystectomy: from prehab to rehab. Eur Urol 73(3):372–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Robertson AG, Kim J, Al-Ahmadie H, Bellmunt J, Guo G, Cherniack AD et al (2017) Comprehensive molecular characterization of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cell 171:540.e25–556.e25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ye F, Wang L, Castillo-Martin M, McBride R, Galsky MD, Zhu J et al (2014) Biomarkers for bladder cancer management: present and future. Am J Clin Exp Urol 2:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MM: project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing and editing. YW: data analysis, data management, and manuscript writing and editing. JS: data analysis and manuscript writing and editing. WST: data analysis and manuscript writing and editing. MJH: manuscript review and editing. MAP: manuscript review and editing. Q-DT: manuscript review and editing. GS: manuscript review and editing. ASK: manuscript review and editing. SLC: project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Mossanen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

Dr. Sonpavde has the following disclosures: Consultant for Bayer, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Amgen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Genentech, EMD Serono, Agensys/Astellas; Research support to institution from Bayer, Celgene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen; Author for Uptodate; Speaker fees from Clinical Care Options, Physicians Education Resource (PER), Research to Practice (RTP), Onclive. This research did not involve human participants or animals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mossanen, M., Wang, Y., Szymaniak, J. et al. Evaluating the cost of surveillance for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an analysis based on risk categories. World J Urol 37, 2059–2065 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2550-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2550-x

Keywords

Navigation