The Continuing Story of the Cost-Effectiveness of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate versus Transuretheral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Obstruction

BackgroundIn 2008, a UK assessment of technologies for benign prostatic obstruction concluded negatively about photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance caused several UK institutions to abandon PVP.ObjectiveTo reassess the costs and effects of PVP versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the basis of most recent data.MethodsThe same model was used as in 2008. Transition probabilities were estimated using a Bayesian approach updating the 2008 estimates with data from two meta-analyses and data from GOLIATH, the latest and largest trial comparing PVP with TURP. Utility estimates were from the 2008 assessment, and estimates of resource utilization and costs were updated. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained, and costs are in UK pounds. The balance between costs and effects was addressed by multivariate sensitivity analysis.ResultsIf the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence analysis would have updated the cost-effectiveness analysis with figures from its own meta-analysis, it would have estimated the change in quality-adjusted life-years at −0.01 (95% confidence interval CI] −0.05 to 0.01) instead of at −0.11 (95% CI −0.31 to −0.01) as in the 2008 analysis. The GOLIATH estimate of −0.01 (95% CI −0.07 to 0.02) strengthens the conclusion of near equivalence. Estimates of additional costs vary from £491 (£21−£1286) in 2008 to £111 (−£315 to £595) for 2010 and to £109 (−£204 to £504) for GOLIATH. PVP becomes cost saving if more than 32% can be carried out as a day case in the United Kingdom.ConclusionsThe available evidence indicates that PVP can be a cost-effective alternative for TURP in a potentially broad group of patients.