Comparative Effectiveness, Cost, and Utilization of Radical Prostatectomy among Young Men within Managed Care Insurance Plans

BackgroundCosts and benefits of emerging prostate cancer treatments for young men (age < 65 years) in the United States are not well understood. We compared utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs between two types of radical prostatectomy (RP)—minimally invasive prostatectomy (MIRP) and retropubic prostatectomy (RRP)—among young patients.MethodsWe extracted from LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database, a commercial claims database, information on 10,669 patients receiving either MIRP or RRP between 2003 and 2007. In unadjusted analyses, we used chi-square tests to compare clinical outcomes and nonparametric bootstrapping method to compare costs between the MIRP and RRP groups. We applied logistic, Cox proportional hazard, and extended estimation equation methods to examine the association between surgical modality and perioperative complications, anastomotic stricture, and costs while controlling for age, comorbidity, and health plan characteristics.ResultsThe percentage of prostatectomies performed as MIRP increased from 5.7% in 2003 to 50.3% in 2007. Patients with more comorbidity were more likely to undergo RRP than MIRP. Compared with the RRP group, the MIRP group had a significantly lower rate of perioperative complications (23.0% vs. 30.4%; P < 0.001) and a lesser tendency for anastomotic strictures (hazard ratio 0.42; 95% CI 0.35–0.50) within the first postoperative year but had higher hospitalization costs ($19,998 vs. $18,424; P < 0.001) despite shorter hospitalizations (1.7 days vs. 3.1 days; P < 0.001). Similar findings were reported in the subgroup analysis of patients with comorbidity score 0.ConclusionMIRP among nonelderly patients increased substantially over time. MIRP was found to have fewer complications. Lower costs of complications appeared to have offset higher hospitalization costs of MIRP.