Comparing the costs of three prostate cancer follow-up strategies: a cost minimisation analysis.

<bold>Purpose: </bold>Prostate cancer follow-up is traditionally provided by clinicians in a hospital setting. Growing numbers of prostate cancer survivors mean that this model of care may not be economically sustainable, and a number of alternative approaches have been suggested. The aim of this study was to develop an economic model to compare the costs of three alternative strategies for prostate cancer follow-up in Ireland-the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, the National Institute of Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and current practice.<bold>Methods: </bold>A cost minimisation analysis was performed using a Markov model with three arms (EAU guidelines, NICE guidelines and current practice) comparing follow-up for men with prostate cancer treated with curative intent. The model took a health care payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon.<bold>Results: </bold>Current practice was the least cost efficient arm of the model, the NICE guidelines were most cost efficient (74 % of current practice costs) and the EAU guidelines intermediate (92 % of current practice costs). For the 2562 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2009, the Irish health care system could have saved €760,000 over a 10-year period if the NICE guidelines were adopted.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>This is the first study investigating costs of prostate cancer follow-up in the Irish setting. While economic models are designed as a simplification of complex real-world situations, these results suggest potential for significant savings within the Irish health care system associated with implementation of alternative models of prostate cancer follow-up care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]