Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of preoperative stent placement on total cost of ureteroscopic stone intervention. Passive ureteral dilation with a preoperative ureteral stent has been proposed as a method to facilitate both upper tract access and stone removal. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent ureteroscopic stone intervention at our institution from 2005 to 2009. A sample of patients who had undergone stenting before ureteroscopy was selected and nonstented matched controls were used as a comparison group. A cost model was used to compare the total healthcare costs for the prestented and nonstented patients with a large (>1 cm) and small (≤1 cm) stone burden using the actual cost accrued for each patient. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine the robustness of the cost model. RESULTS:A total of 104 patients were included in the present study (45 prestented, 59 not prestented). The median stone size was 1 cm (range 0.3-4). The overall stone clearance rate was 95.8%. The median number of procedures was 1. Pre-stenting significantly decreased the total healthcare cost in patients with stones >1 cm. The median cost for the prestented and nonstented cohorts was $17,706 and $27,806, respectively (P < .01). However, prestenting increased the total cost for smaller stones of ≤1 cm, although not significantly. The median cost for the prestented and nonstented cohorts was $10,872 and $12,344, respectively (P = .70). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model conclusions are robust. CONCLUSIONS:Preoperative stent placement is cost-effective for successful ureteroscopic treatment of stones >1 cm.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:In part because of concern regarding overtreatment in men with prostate cancer, watchful waiting with active surveillance (WWAS) has been increasingly used in men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. The present study investigates the difference in costs between men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with up-front radical prostatectomy (RP) versus WWAS. METHODS:A cost model was constructed using data from centers that have published their results in men who were followed up with WWAS compared with the actual costs of up-front RP calculated from a high volume center. Two WWAS arms of 15-year duration were created in which the follow-up protocol and conversion rate to active treatment were varied. RESULTS:The cost of up-front RP including costs of surgery, complications, and follow up for 15 years was $15 235 per person. Costs of WWAS were estimated using annual conversion rates from WWAS to RP of both 5% and 7%. Costs per person in the WWAS arms ranged from $6558 to $11 992 in the scenarios created which represent a 43%-78.7% reduction in costs when compared with men undergoing up-front RP. CONCLUSIONS:Watchful waiting with active surveillance is being increasingly used in hopes of decreasing the potential overtreatment of prostate cancer in men with low-risk disease. The present study suggests that WWAS is likely to markedly decrease costs when compared with active treatment with RP.