Abstract
Purpose
Prostate cancer follow-up is traditionally provided by clinicians in a hospital setting. Growing numbers of prostate cancer survivors mean that this model of care may not be economically sustainable, and a number of alternative approaches have been suggested. The aim of this study was to develop an economic model to compare the costs of three alternative strategies for prostate cancer follow-up in Ireland—the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, the National Institute of Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and current practice.
Methods
A cost minimisation analysis was performed using a Markov model with three arms (EAU guidelines, NICE guidelines and current practice) comparing follow-up for men with prostate cancer treated with curative intent. The model took a health care payer’s perspective over a 10-year time horizon.
Results
Current practice was the least cost efficient arm of the model, the NICE guidelines were most cost efficient (74 % of current practice costs) and the EAU guidelines intermediate (92 % of current practice costs). For the 2562 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2009, the Irish health care system could have saved €760,000 over a 10-year period if the NICE guidelines were adopted.
Conclusions
This is the first study investigating costs of prostate cancer follow-up in the Irish setting. While economic models are designed as a simplification of complex real-world situations, these results suggest potential for significant savings within the Irish health care system associated with implementation of alternative models of prostate cancer follow-up care.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JWW, Comber H et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 49(6):1374–1403
Sharp L, Deady S, Gallagher P, Molcho M, Pearce A, Alforque Thomas A et al (2014) The magnitude and characteristics of the population of cancer survivors: using population-based estimates of cancer prevalence to inform service planning for survivorship care. BMC Cancer 14:767
Davies N, Batehup L (2011) Towards a personalised approach to aftercare: a review of cancer follow-up in the UK. J Cancer Surviv 5(2):142–151
Lewis RA, Neal RD, Williams NH, France B, Hendry M, Russell D et al (2009) Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 59(564):234–247
Lewis R, Neal RD, Williams NH, France B, Wilkinson C, Hendry M et al (2009) Nurse-led vs. conventional physician-led follow-up for patients with cancer: systematic review. J Adv Nurs 65(4):706–723
Emery JD, Shaw K, Williams B, Mazza D, Fallon-Ferguson J, Varlow M et al (2014) The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11(1):38–48
McIntosh HM, Neal RD, Rose P, Watson E, Wilkinson C, Weller D et al (2009) Follow-up care for men with prostate cancer and the role of primary care: a systematic review of international guidelines. Br J Cancer 100(12):1852–1860
Mottet N, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh, R.C.N., Bolla, M., van Casteren, N.J., et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer - Update April 2014 [Internet]. European Association of Urology; 2014. Available from: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/09%20Prostate%20Cancer_LRLV2.pdf
NICE. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment, NICE Clinical Guideline 175 [Internet]. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014 [cited 2014 Jul 8]. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175/resources/guidance-prostate-cancer-diagnosis-and-treatment-pdf
Neymark N (1998) Assessing the economic value of anticancer therapies. Recent Results Cancer Res Fortschritte Krebsforsch Prog Dans Rech Sur Cancer 148:1–285
Briggs AH, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K (2006) Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
National Cancer Registry Ireland. Incidence statistics [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2014 Dec 11]. Available from: www.ncri.ie/data/incidence-statistics
Hennessy, M., O’Leary, E., Comber, H., Drummond, F.J., Sharp, L. Men’s experiences of prostate cancer care in Ireland: Findings from the PiCTure 2 Study. Irish Cancer Society and National Cancer Registry Ireland; In Press.
Hennessy, M., O’Leary, E., Comber, H., Drummond, F.J., Sharp, L (2013) Associations between men’s experiences of prostate cancer care and health-related quality-of-life and psychological wellbeing: findings from a national study: the influence of the clinical nurse specialist. Support Care Cancer, 21(Supplement 1).
Drummond, F.J., Kinnear, H., O’Leary, E., Donnelly, C., Gavin, A., Sharp, L. Long-term health related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies with primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, Your Experience) study. J Cancer Surviv. In Press;In Press.
Amling C, Blute M, Bergstralh E, Seay T, Slezak J, Zincke H (2000) Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol 164(1):101–105
Central Statistics Office. Irish Life Tables No.15; 2005–2007. [Internet]. Central Statistics Office; 2009 [cited 2014 Aug 19]. Available from: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/duplicatecsomedia/newmedia/releasespublications/documents/birthsdm/current/irishlife.pdf
Curtis, L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care [Internet]. Personal and Social Services Research Unit; 2013 [cited 2014 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2013/
Drummond FJ, Barrett E, Burns R, O’Neill C, Sharp L (2014) The number of tPSA tests continues to rise and variation in testing practices persists: a survey of laboratory services in Ireland 2008–2010. Ir J Med Sci 183(3):369–375
Drummond FJ, O’Leary E, O’Neill C, Burns R, Sharp L. “Bird in the hand” cash was more effective than prize draws in increasing physician questionnaire response. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2013 Oct 31 [cited 2013 Nov 14]; Available from: http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(13)00355-7/abstract
Curtis, L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care [Internet]. Personal and Social Services Research Unit; 2010 [cited 2014 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2010/
Central Statistics Office. Census 2011 This is Ireland (Part 1) [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2014 Dec 15]. Available from: http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011thisisirelandpart1/
Health Service Executive. HSE PCRS – Statistical Analysis of Claims and Payments 2011 [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2014 Dec 15]. Available from: http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/PCRS/PCRS_Publications/pcrsclaimsandpayments2011.pdf
Information H, Authority Q (2010) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland
XE. Currency Converter [Internet]. USA: XE; 2014 [cited 2014 Sep 2]. Available from: http://www.ex.com/currencyconverter/
Eurostat. Comparative price levels [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2014 Dec 11]. Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00120
Lu W, Greuter MJW, Schaapveld M, Vermeulen KM, Wiggers T, de Bock GH (2012) Safety and cost-effectiveness of shortening hospital follow-up after breast cancer treatment. Br J Surg 99(9):1227–1233
Augestad KM, Norum J, Dehof S, Aspevik R, Ringberg U, Nestvold T, et al. (2013) Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 3(4).
Koinberg I, Engholm G-B, Genell A, Holmberg L (2009) A health economic evaluation of follow-up after breast cancer surgery: results of an RCT study. Acta Oncol Stockh Swed 48(1):99–104
Government of Ireland. Budget 2015 [Internet]. Dublin, Ireland: Government Publications, Government of Ireland; 2014 Oct. Available from: http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2015/2015.aspx
Bourke J, Bradley C (2010) General Practice in Ireland in 201: A survey of staff and equipment investment, Working Paper Series [Internet]. Department of Economics, University College Cork, [cited 2014 Aug 5], Available from: http://www.icgp.ie/go/library/catalogue/item/70EA2819-C156-41DA-87708AC2549C7E0B/
Dittus K, Sprague B, Pace C, Dulko D, Pollack L, Hawkins N et al (2014) Primary care provider evaluation of survivorship care plans developed for patients in their practice. J Gen Pract 2(4):1–8
National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive. Follow-up care plan after treatment for breast cancer: A guide for General Practitioners [Internet]. Dublin, Ireland: National Cancer Control Programme; 2013 [cited 2014 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/5/nccp/profinfo/Follow-up_care_plan_after_breast_cancer_-_a_guide_for_GPs.pdf
Irish Medical Organisation (2013) HSE failure to fund cancer care services in general practice leaves patients carrying the costs. Irish Medical Organisation, Dublin, Ireland
Howell D, Hack TF, Oliver TK, Chulak T, Mayo S, Aubin M et al (2012) Models of care for post-treatment follow-up of adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the evidence. J Cancer Surviv 6(4):359–371
Payne H, Clarke N, Huddart R, Parker C, Troup J, Graham J (2013) Nasty or Nice? Findings from a UK Survey to Evaluate the Impact of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Prostate Cancer. Clin Oncol 25(3):178–189
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the following: The Follow-Up After Cancer Treatment (FACT) Advisory Group (Donal Buggy, Phyllis Butow, Pamela Gallagher, Paul Hanly, David Galvin, Racheal Gooberman-Hill, Louise Mullan, Micheal O Ríordáin, Eila Watson, Verity Watson) for guidance on the research programme; Pamela Gallagher, Michal Molcho, and Ciaran O’Neill for participation in the ICE Steering Committee and comments on a draft of the paper; Marita Hennessy for access to the PICTURE2 data and comments on a draft of the paper; and Sophie Whyte for supervision and support of the student project that formed the basis of this paper.
Conflict of interest
No authors have any conflict of interest to declare.
Financial and other support
This work was funded by a Health Research Board (HRB) Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement (ICE) Award, which funds post-doctoral fellowships for Alison Pearce, Audrey Alforque Thomas and Aileen Timmons (ICE/2012/9). The surveys of prostate cancer survivors from which the EQ-5D-5L data was derived were funded by the Irish Cancer Society (PiCTure 2 study) and the Health Research Board (HRA_HSR/2010/17), Prostate Cancer UK (NI09-03 and NI-PG13-001) and Northern Ireland R&D (PiCTure study).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Alison M Pearce and Fay Ryan are joint first authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pearce, A.M., Ryan, F., Drummond, F.J. et al. Comparing the costs of three prostate cancer follow-up strategies: a cost minimisation analysis. Support Care Cancer 24, 879–886 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2857-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2857-8