TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing costs of renal preservation versus radical nephroureterectomy management among patients with non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma
AU - Williams, Stephen B.
AU - Shan, Yong
AU - Fero, Katherine E.
AU - Movva, Giri
AU - Baillargeon, Jacques
AU - Tyler, Douglas S.
AU - Chamie, Karim
N1 - Funding Information:
We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-linked Medicare database. SEER is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and aggregates data from 18 cancer registries. Ascertainment of cancer cases in SEER meets the standards of the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (98% complete) [9] . Medicare provides information on healthcare utilization. The study was reviewed and determined to be exempt by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas Medical Branch.
Funding Information:
This study was conducted with the support of a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP) Career Development Award ( W81XWH1710576 ) (SBW) and H&H Lee UCLA Surgical Scholars Program (KEF) . This research project was funded by a research grant from UroGen Pharma ( 2020-0776 ).
Funding Information:
This study was conducted with the support of a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP) Career Development Award (W81XWH1710576) (SBW) and H&H Lee UCLA Surgical Scholars Program (KEF). This research project was funded by a research grant from UroGen Pharma (2020-0776).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - Background: To describe overall and categorical cost components in the management of patients with non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) according to treatment. Methods: We identified 4,114 patients diagnosed with non-metastatic UTUC from 2004 to 2013 in the Survival Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database. Patients were stratified into renal preservation (RP) vs. radical nephroureterectomy (NU) groups. Total Medicare costs within 1 year of diagnosis were compared for patients managed with RP vs. NU using inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity score models. Results: A total of 1,085 (26%) and 3,029 (74%) patients underwent RP and NU, respectively. Median costs were significantly lower for RP vs. NU at 90 days (median difference –$4,428, Hodges-Lehmann [H-L] 95% confidence interval [CI], –$7,236 to –$1,619) and 365 days (median difference –$7,430, H-L 95% CI, –$13,166 to –$1,695), respectively. Median costs according to categories of services were significantly less for RP vs. NU patients by hospitalization, office visits, emergency room/critical care, consultations, and anesthesia. The only category which was significantly higher for RP vs. NU was inpatient visits ($1,699 vs. $1,532; median difference $152; HL 95% CI, $19–$286). Conclusions: Median costs were significantly lower for RP vs. NU up to 1-year and by hospitalization, office visits, emergency room/critical care, consultations, and anesthesia costs.
AB - Background: To describe overall and categorical cost components in the management of patients with non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) according to treatment. Methods: We identified 4,114 patients diagnosed with non-metastatic UTUC from 2004 to 2013 in the Survival Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database. Patients were stratified into renal preservation (RP) vs. radical nephroureterectomy (NU) groups. Total Medicare costs within 1 year of diagnosis were compared for patients managed with RP vs. NU using inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity score models. Results: A total of 1,085 (26%) and 3,029 (74%) patients underwent RP and NU, respectively. Median costs were significantly lower for RP vs. NU at 90 days (median difference –$4,428, Hodges-Lehmann [H-L] 95% confidence interval [CI], –$7,236 to –$1,619) and 365 days (median difference –$7,430, H-L 95% CI, –$13,166 to –$1,695), respectively. Median costs according to categories of services were significantly less for RP vs. NU patients by hospitalization, office visits, emergency room/critical care, consultations, and anesthesia. The only category which was significantly higher for RP vs. NU was inpatient visits ($1,699 vs. $1,532; median difference $152; HL 95% CI, $19–$286). Conclusions: Median costs were significantly lower for RP vs. NU up to 1-year and by hospitalization, office visits, emergency room/critical care, consultations, and anesthesia costs.
KW - Costs
KW - Outcomes
KW - Treatment
KW - Upper tract urothelial carcinoma
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127353999&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85127353999&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.02.016
DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.02.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 35351369
AN - SCOPUS:85127353999
SN - 1078-1439
VL - 40
SP - 345.e1-345.e7
JO - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
JF - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
IS - 7
ER -