# name
Economic Evaluation of Traditional Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer: A 10‐Year Cohort Study

# metadata.dc.contributor.author[].value
Multicentric Spanish Group Of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer, The

# metadata.dc.description.abstract[].value
Objectives: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis based on primary data from a cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer followed throughout 10 years, comparing radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and applying disease-specific utilities, from a national health system's perspective.Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were consecutively recruited in 2003-2005 from 10 Spanish hospitals (n = 674) (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01492751). The expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) and short-form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered through telephone interviews before treatment and annually during follow-up. The outcome measures to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between treatments (ICER) were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), calculated by the patient-oriented prostate utility scale (PORPUS) utility index, obtained with a mapping from the EPIC and the SF-36, and survival data. Ten-year medical activities were used to derive costs. Both unweighted and propensity score-weighted analyses were performed.Results: The weighted mean of 10-year QALYs was the highest for radical prostatectomy (8.53), followed by brachytherapy (8.49) and external radiotherapy (8.20), but the difference was only statistically significant with the latter. Costs were significantly higher for brachytherapy (21,348) than radical prostatectomy (12,281) and EBRT (7,560). Compared to EBRT, the weighted ICER for radical prostatectomy was 14,169/QALY gained and 48,417/QALY for brachytherapy.Conclusion: Our findings support that radical prostatectomy was the most cost-effective alternative, but the differences in effectiveness among the three treatments were small. The incremental cost of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy compared to EBRT, however, does not justify restricting these alternatives.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01492751

# metadata.dc.relation.ispartof[].value
European Journal of Cancer Care, 2025, vol. 2025, num. 1

# metadata.dc.source[].value
Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))

# metadata.dc.title[].value
Economic Evaluation of Traditional Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer: A 10‐Year Cohort Study