Back to Search
Start Over
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Surgical versus Medical Treatment of Prolactinomas.
- Source :
-
Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base [J Neurol Surg B Skull Base] 2017 Apr; Vol. 78 (2), pp. 125-131. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Sep 27. - Publication Year :
- 2017
-
Abstract
- Background Few studies address the cost of treating prolactinomas. We performed a cost-utility analysis of surgical versus medical treatment for prolactinomas. Materials and Methods We determined total hospital costs for surgically and medically treated prolactinoma patients. Decision-tree analysis was performed to determine which treatment produced the highest quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Outcome data were derived from published studies. Results Average total costs for surgical patients were $19,224 ( ± 18,920). Average cost for the first year of bromocriptine or cabergoline treatment was $3,935 and $6,042, with $2,622 and $4,729 for each additional treatment year. For a patient diagnosed with prolactinoma at 40 years of age, surgery has the lowest lifetime cost ($40,473), followed by bromocriptine ($41,601) and cabergoline ($70,696). Surgery also appears to generate high health state utility and thus more QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, surgery appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for prolactinomas across a range of ages, medical/surgical costs, and medical/surgical response rates, except when surgical cure rates are ≤ 30%. Conclusion Our single institution analysis suggests that surgery may be a more cost-effective treatment for prolactinomas than medical management for a range of patient ages, costs, and response rates. Direct empirical comparison of QALYs for different treatment strategies is needed to confirm these findings.
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 2193-6331
- Volume :
- 78
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 28321375
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1592193