title: Photodynamic diagnostics and noninvasive bladder cancer: is it cost-effective in long-term application? A Germany-based cost analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Noninvasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) causes an enormous economic burden to public health systems due to its life-long character and frequent recurrences. While white light (WL) cystoscopy is considered to be the gold standard for transurethral resection of the bladder, photodynamic diagnostic (PDD) has been shown to improve final outcome. Escalating healthcare costs warrant increased effectiveness in treating noninvasive UCB. No data based on assessment of costs have been published to date.
  
  
  METHODS
  A series of 301 patients with noninvasive UCB were randomized prospectively to standard WL or PDD transurethral resections of the bladder. Intravesical adjuvant therapy was administered as reflected in the appropriate guidelines. Expenditures of subsequent procedures and PDD-associated costs were assessed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Median follow-up was 7.1 yr. Disease recurrence was found in 42% and 18% of WL and PDD patients, respectively (p=0.0003). In the WL group 2.0 and in the PDD group 0.8 transurethral resections of the bladder were noted per patient. In the WL group 1.0 and in the PDD group 0.3 recurring UCB occurred per patient, resulting in costs of 1750 euro per WL patient versus 420 euro per PDD patient in the follow-up period, respectively. Because a single expenditure of 135 euro was assessed for PDD, overall costs were significantly lower (by 1195 euro) in PDD patients. As the median follow-up was 7.1 yr, costs saved by PDD per patient per year were 168 euro.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our data suggest that PDD significantly cut costs related to recurring UCB. Further studies are needed from an economic point of view.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. maximilian.burger@klinik.uni-regensburg.de
authors.forename: Maximilian
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Burger
authors.forename: Dirk
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Zaak
authors.forename: Christian G
authors.initials: CG
authors.lastname: Stief
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Filbeck
authors.forename: Wolf-Ferdinand
authors.initials: WF
authors.lastname: Wieland
authors.forename: Wolfgang
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Roessler
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Denzinger
mesh_terms: D000283:Administration, Intravesical; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000622:Aminolevulinic Acid / Q000008:administration & dosage; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003950:Diagnostic Techniques, Urological / Q000191:economics*; D018450:Disease Progression; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D005260:Female; D005453:Fluorescence; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D017319:Photosensitizing Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage; D011379:Prognosis; D011446:Prospective Studies; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013997:Time Factors; D001749:Urinary Bladder Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000191:economics / Q000601:surgery
chemical_list: D017319:Photosensitizing Agents; D000622:Aminolevulinic Acid