Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy and percutaneous cryoablation for cT1a renal cell...

There is growing evidence that partial nephrectomy (PN) and percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) yield comparable outcomes for patients with cT1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC), although the cost-effectiveness of both treatments still needs to be assessed.

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of PN and PCA for patients with cT1a RCC.

A decision analysis was created over a 5-year span from a healthcare payer's perspective computing expected costs and outcomes of PN and PCA in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER). After each treatment, the following states were modelled using data from the recent literature: procedural complications, no evidence of disease (NED), local recurrence, metastases, and death from RCC- or non-RCC-related causes. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

PCA and PN yielded health benefits of 3.68 QALY and 3.67 QALY. Overall expected costs were $20,491 and $26,478 for PCA and PN. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PCA was more cost-effective than PN in 84.78% of Monte Carlo simulations. PCA was more cost-effective until its complication risk was at least 38% higher than PN. PCA was more cost-effective than PN when (i) PCAs annual local recurrence risk was < 3.5% higher than that of PN in absolute values; (ii) PCAs annual metastatic risk was < 1.0% higher than that of PN; or (iii) PCAs annual cancer-specific mortality risk < 0.65% higher than that of PN. PCA remained cost-effective until its procedural cost is above $13,875.

PCA appears to be more cost-effective than PN for the treatment of cT1a RCC, although the currently available evidence is of limited quality. PCA may be the better treatment strategy in the majority of scenarios varying procedural complications, recurrence, metastatic risk, and RCC-mortality in clinically plausible ranges.

• For patients with cT1a RCCs, PCA yields a comparable health benefit at lower costs compared to PN, making PCA the dominant and therefore more cost-effective treatment strategy over PN. • PCA was more cost-effective than PN when (i) PCAs annual local recurrence risk was < 3.5% higher than PN in absolute values; (ii) PCAs annual metastatic risk was < 1.0% higher than PN; or (iii) PCAs annual cancer-specific mortality risk < 0.65% higher than PN. • PCA is more cost-effective than PN for the treatment of cT1a RCC, and it remained so in the majority of scenarios varying procedural complications, recurrence, metastatic risk, and RCC mortality.