title: Photoselective vaporization for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  As an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) provides a bloodless, relatively painless relief of lower urinary tract symptoms for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Following a review of the evidence in 2006, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee recommended that a study be conducted to evaluate PVP in Ontario.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of PVP compared to conventional TURP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Ontario.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospective, nonrandomized trial was conducted in 3 Ontario centres. Consenting subjects were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months following surgery. Outcome measures included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual (PVR) volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EuroQol 5 Domain questionnaire, and the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score. Adverse events, resource utilization, and productivity losses were also assessed. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were completed using data from the study.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Between February 2008 and August 2010, 164 subjects were enrolled in the study (n = 140 for PVP and n = 24 for TURP). Treatment outcomes were similar between the 2 groups at 6 months, with the IPSS decreasing similarly over time (P = 0.718). For other treatment outcomes (Qmax, PSA, HRQOL, SHIM) both treatments provided similar benefit over time; only changes in PVR volume favoured PVP (P = 0.018). The majority of PVP patients were managed on an outpatient basis, with only 7.1% requiring admission (all TURP subjects were inpatients). At 6 months, PVP was less costly than TURP ($3,891 versus $4,863; P = 0.001), with similar quality-adjusted life-years (0.448 versus 0.441; P = 0.658). PVP remained the most cost-effective treatment across all decision-making thresholds, with the technology costing less and providing similar clinical outcomes. Extrapolating the results to a provincial level indicated (based on an estimated case volume of 12,335 TURPs) that there is an opportunity to reallocate just over $14 million (Cdn), primarily related to the reduced need for hospital admission.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study was nonrandomized, and the results should be interpreted with some caution, despite generally similar baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Recruiting individuals to the TURP arm was a challenge, resulting in a size imbalance between treatment arms.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Based on this analysis, PVP appears to be a cost-effective alternative to TURP, providing similar clinical benefit at a lower cost to the health system.
authors.affiliation: Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton and Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: James M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Bowen
authors.forename: J Paul
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Whelan
authors.forename: Robert B
authors.initials: RB
authors.lastname: Hopkins
authors.forename: Natasha
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Burke
authors.forename: Edward A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Woods
authors.forename: Gary P
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: McIsaac
authors.forename: Daria J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: O'Reilly
authors.forename: Feng
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Xie
authors.forename: Shayan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sehatzadeh
authors.forename: Leslie
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Levin
authors.forename: Suja P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Mathew
authors.forename: Lisa L
authors.initials: LL
authors.lastname: Patterson
authors.forename: Ron
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Goeree
authors.forename: Jean-Eric
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Tarride
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002170:Canada; D006801:Humans; D053685:Laser Therapy / Q000191:economics* / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009864:Ontario; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011470:Prostatic Hyperplasia / Q000191:economics* / Q000601:surgery*; D011788:Quality of Life; D020728:Transurethral Resection of Prostate / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2006;6(17):1-121
references.pmid: 23074487
references.citation: J Urol. 2000 Jun;163(6):1730-3
references.pmid: 10799170
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2011 Oct;60(4):734-9
references.pmid: 21658839
references.citation: Can J Urol. 2005 Jun;12(3):2677-83
references.pmid: 16011814
references.citation: Annu Rev Med. 1997;48:177-89
references.pmid: 9046954
references.citation: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2007;16(1):5-10
references.pmid: 17365672
references.citation: J Urol. 1992 Nov;148(5):1549-57; discussion 1564
references.pmid: 1279218
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Apr;173(4):1256-61
references.pmid: 15758764
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2006 Nov;50(5):969-79; discussion 980
references.pmid: 16469429
references.citation: Int J Impot Res. 1999 Dec;11(6):319-26
references.pmid: 10637462
references.citation: Urology. 2002 Aug;60(2):305-8
references.pmid: 12137831
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Sep;58(3):349-55
references.pmid: 20605316
references.citation: Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
references.pmid: 9366889
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1174-6; discussion 1176-7
references.pmid: 22386836
references.citation: World J Urol. 2006 Sep;24(4):405-9
references.pmid: 16699795
references.citation: Urol Clin North Am. 1995 May;22(2):299-307
references.pmid: 7539176
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2005 Dec;48(6):965-71; discussion 972
references.pmid: 16126327
references.citation: Am J Manag Care. 2006 Mar;12(4 Suppl):S76-82
references.pmid: 16551205
references.citation: BJU Int. 2010 Apr;105(7):964-9
references.pmid: 19912196
references.citation: Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
references.pmid: 10109801
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Oct;110(8):1184-9
references.pmid: 22257240
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1165-73
references.pmid: 22341632