Utility after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to conventional approaches for localized prostate cancer [socioeconomic perspective study].

BACKGROUND: This study presented the utility across approaches (robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP)), across disease states after surgery, and also across functional outcomes for localized prostate cancers. The utility was measured using the time trade-off method.

METHODS: This survey was based on a scenario that describes the state of health in detail and considers surgical methods, short-term adverse effects following RP, disease-specific conditions, and additional treatments 1 year following RP.

RESULTS: This study analyzed 393 men; the utility values are as follows: first, health status postoperatively showed that the utility value decreased in patients who underwent ORP versus those who underwent LRP. The utility value for ORP and LRP versus RARP was reduced by ~0.028 (10 days per year) and 0.008 (3 days per year), respectively. Second, the utility value based on adverse effects after RP indicated that erectile dysfunction caused a greater reduction in efficacy than urinary incontinence. Regarding erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, the efficacy was reduced to ~0.137 (50 days per year) and 0.111 (41 days per year), respectively, as compared to a health state without adverse effects based on no evidence of disease status.

CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the disutility was much greater due to the side effects than the disutility due to the difference in the surgical method. In particular, the disutility of erectile dysfunction was bigger than that of the urinary incontinence.