The cost of feedback microwave thermotherapy compared with transurethral resection of the prostate for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of a new microwave thermotherapy for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), the ProstaLund Feedback Treatment (PLFT, ProstaLund Operations AB, Lund, Sweden) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in a clinical trial to their effectiveness in clinical practice over 1 year, to estimate their cost over 1 year, and to evaluate the cost of re-interventions over a longer period (2-3 years).


METHODS
In a large randomized international 1-year clinical trial PLFT was as effective as TURP in improving symptoms of BPH and urinary flow. Because PLFT is an outpatient procedure it was less costly than TURP. However, the cost-effectiveness of the new procedure depends on its long-term effectiveness in clinical practice. All 146 patients in the randomized clinical trial were included in the present analysis. The outcome was based on the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the bother score, and costs were estimated from treatment-related adverse events and hospitalization. To validate the estimates based on the clinical trial 1-year data on effectiveness and complete resource use in clinical practice were collected in a retrospective observational study from hospital charts and patient questionnaires of 88 patients who had undergone either TURP or PLFT. To assess the number of re-interventions after TURP after the first year information was obtained from hospital and surgical procedure data in the Swedish inpatient registry. The 3-year data for a total of 52,010 patients who had an index hospitalization for TURP between 1990 and 1995 were available for the analysis. The estimate of long-term consequences of PLFT was based on complication and re-intervention data for 87 patients who had undergone PLFT between 1997 and 1999.


RESULTS
The mean 1-year costs in the clinical trial were estimated at [symbol: see text] 1763 for PLFT and [symbol: see text] 3209 for TURP. When all treatment-related resource use in clinical practice for 88 patients was included the costs were estimated at [symbol: see text] 1924 and [symbol: see text] 3264 for PLFT and TURP, respectively. The IPSS and bother scores were not significantly different between the groups in both datasets. Using the registry data the cost of TURP including re-interventions (TURP and bladder neck incisions) was estimated at [symbol: see text] 3159 over 2 years and [symbol: see text] 3185 over 3 years; the respective costs for PLFT were [symbol: see text] 2121 and at [symbol: see text] 2151.


CONCLUSIONS
In the 1-year clinical trial PLFT was as effective but less costly than TURP, but long-term data are still lacking. However, the preliminary analysis over 3 years indicates that the average cost of the procedure remains lower than the total cost of TURP for the same period.
Kobelt
G
G
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. kobelt.gisela@he-europe.com
Spångberg
A
A
Mattiasson
A
A
D000368:Aged; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D005246:Feedback; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D006979:Hyperthermia, Induced / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D011470:Prostatic Hyperplasia / Q000191:economics / Q000601:surgery / Q000628:therapy*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D020728:Transurethral Resection of Prostate / Q000191:economics