Cost-effectiveness analysis: percutaneous microwave ablation vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for small renal masses

Transabdominal Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy and CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation for the Treatment of De Novo Kidney Tumors After Liver Transplantation

The management of de novo kidney tumors (DKTs) after liver transplantation (LT) is challenging due to previous transplant surgery and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI)-related nephrotoxicity. Minimally invasive renal-sparing strategies like robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) are favored, but a transperitoneal approach may be limited by the previous transplant surgery and the location of the DKT; in such cases, CT-guided cryoablation may be an alternative option. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to compare RPN and cryoablation for the treatment of DKT in LT recipients. The primary endpoints were the efficacy (R0 resection in RPN, absence of the tumor at first follow-up for cryoablation) and the safety of the procedures (postoperative morbidity and increase in creatine level). The periprocedural costs and the oncologic efficacy (recurrence and overall survival) were the secondary endpoints. Twelve LT recipients (91.7% males, mean age 65 years) underwent RPN (n = 6) or cryoablation (n = 6) for DKT; the median interval between LT and diagnosis of DKT was 142.5 vs. 117.5 months, respectively. Efficacy was obtained in all patients after RPN and cryoablation. Postoperative morbidity was 16.7% in each group, and the postoperative increase in creatinine values was similar. Hospital stay was shorter following cryoablation vs. RPN (3.1 vs. 6.7 days; p = 0.03). The mean procedural costs were higher for RPN. There was no mortality and none of the patients had signs of recurrence after a median follow-up of 40.5 months. Both RPN and CT-guided cryoablation were safe and effective for the treatment of selected patients with DKT after LT. When applicable, cryoablation may be cost-effective and provide faster recovery.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of microwave ablation versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for patients with small renal masses in Australia

OBJECTIVES

Microwave ablation (MWA) has gained attention as a minimally invasive and safe alternative to surgical intervention for patients with small renal masses; however, its cost-effectiveness in Australia remains unclear. This study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the relative clinical and economic merits of MWA compared to robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RA-PN) in the treatment of small renal masses.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was constructed to simulate the progression of Australian patients with small renal masses treated with MWA versus RA-PN over a 10-year horizon. Transition probabilities and utility data were sourced from comprehensive literature reviews, and cost data were estimated from the Australian health system perspective. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. Modelled uncertainty was assessed using both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY was adopted. All costs are expressed in 2022 Australian dollars and discounted at 3% annually. To assess the broader applicability of our findings, a validated cost-adaptation method was employed to extend the analysis to 8 other high-income countries.

RESULTS

Both the base case and cost-adaptation analyses revealed that MWA dominated RA-PN, producing both lower costs and greater effectiveness over 10 years. The cost-effectiveness outcome was robust across all model parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that MWA was dominant in 98.3% of simulations at the designated WTP threshold, underscoring the reliability of the model under varying assumptions.

CONCLUSION

For patients with small renal masses in Australia and comparable healthcare settings, MWA is the preferred strategy to maximize health benefits per dollar, making it a highly cost-effective alternative to RA-PN.

Quantifying treatment burden: the patient burden score a study of 758 patients across three clinical urologic scenarios

OBJECTIVES

To develop a comprehensive scale that measures the three burden types of any treatment, including expected, unexpected (complications), and need for ancillary procedures.

METHODS

A panel of experts created a scale that assessed the burden of all aspects of treatment, including hospitalization, anesthesia, surgery, and follow-up. The total score is defined as the burden score (BS). BS was calculated retrospectively for patients in three clinical scenarios in urology, each with two acceptable treatment options: patients with a small renal mass (T1a) treated with either partial nephrectomy (PN, 139 patients) or percutaneous ablation (PA, 83 patients), patients with bladder cancer (stages T2-4a, N0, M0) treated with radical cystectomy (RC, 162 patients) or trimodal therapy (TMT, 88 patients), and patients with upper ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm treated with either ureteroscopy (137 patients) or extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL, 150 patients).

RESULTS

Both PN and PA provided excellent oncological results (5-year recurrence-free survival ≥ 97%) and low complication rates. However, the BS of PN was more than twice that of PA (27.3 ± 7.7 vs. 12.5 ± 6.4, p < 0.01). RC and TMT showed identical 3-year disease-specific survival rates (73%), but the BS of TMT was significantly lower (53.8 ± 11.1 vs. 42.0 ± 11.6, p < 0.01). Both ureteroscopy and SWL have achieved high stone-free rates (≥ 97%) and low complication rates. However, the BS of ureteroscopy was significantly lower (7.8 ± 3 vs. 9.0 ± 3.5, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

PA treatment for small renal masses, TMT for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones provided similar success rates to those of PN, RC, and SWL, but with significantly lower BS. This tool can assist in patient consultation when multiple treatment options are available. The concept of BS can be extended to other fields of medicine.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Biopsy in Advance of Ablation with Concurrent Biopsy and Ablation for Small Renal Masses Measuring 1-3 cm

PURPOSE

To analyze the cost effectiveness of performing a renal mass biopsy in advance of ablation or concurrently with a percutaneous ablation procedure for the management of small renal masses (SRMs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed with a cohort of 65-year-old male patients with an incidental, unilateral 1-3 cm SRM. A decision tree modeled the first year of clinical intervention, after which patients entered a Markov model with a lifetime horizon. Patients were assumed to be treated in accordance with established clinical practice guidelines, including surveillance, repeat ablation for recurrence, and systemic therapy for metastasis. Healthcare cost and utility values were determined from published literature or local hospital estimates, discounted at 1.5%. Total lifetime costs were calculated from the perspective of a Canadian healthcare payer and converted to 2022 Canadian dollars (C$). The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The secondary outcome was ICER at a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000 per life year (LY) gained.

RESULTS

Concurrent biopsy and ablation resulted in a gain of 16.4 quality-adjusted days, at an incremental cost of $386, with an ICER of C$8,494/QALY. The concurrent strategy was the dominant strategy for a prevalence of benign mass of <5%. Sequential biopsy and ablation was only cost-effective when LYs were not quality-adjusted and ablation cost was >C$4,300 or benign mass prevalence was >28%.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent biopsy and ablation is cost-effective relative to pretreatment diagnostic biopsy for management of incidental SRMs.

Perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes of percutaneous ablation versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal tumors: outcomes from a pooled analysis

The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive pooled analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of percutaneous ablation (PCA) versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN), including robotic and laparoscopic approaches, in patients diagnosed with cT1 renal tumors. We conducted a comprehensive search across four major electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, targeting studies published in English up to April 2024. The primary outcomes evaluated in this analysis included perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. A total of 2449 patients across 17 studies were included in the analysis. PCA demonstrated superior outcomes compared to MIPN in terms of shorter hospital stays (WMD: - 2.13 days; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: - 3.29, - 0.97; p = 0.0003), reduced operative times (WMD: - 109.99 min; 95% CI: - 141.40, - 78.59; p < 0.00001), and lower overall complication rates (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.74; p = 0.0001). However, PCA was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence when compared to MIPN (OR: 3.81; 95% CI: 2.45, 5.92; p < 0.00001). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in major complications, estimated glomerular filtration rate decline, creatinine variation, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival between the two treatment modalities. PCA presents a notable disadvantage regarding local recurrence rates in comparison to MIPN. However, PCA offers several advantages over MIPN, including shorter durations of hospital stay, reduced operative times, and lower complication rates, while achieving similar outcomes in other oncologic metrics.

Percutaneous ablation versus robotic‑assisted partial nephrectomy for cT1 renal cell carcinoma: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes

This investigation sought to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of percutaneous ablation (PCA) versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) among individuals diagnosed with cT1 renal tumors. This study rigorously followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, focusing on studies published in English through February 2024. We focused on evaluating primary outcomes, specifically perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. In this analysis, data from 1534 patients across 13 studies were evaluated. PCA was found to have advantageous outcomes in comparison to RAPN regarding hospital stay durations, with a Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) of - 2.03 days (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -3.78 to - 0.27; p = 0.02), operative times (WMD: -106.75 min; 95% CI: - 170.78 to - 42.72; p = 0.001), and overall complication rates (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89; p = 0.01). Conversely, PCA showed a higher incidence of local recurrence compared to RAPN, with an OR of 3.20 (95% CI: 1.91 to 5.35; p < 0.00001). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatments in terms of major complications, declines in estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), variations in creatinine levels, overall survival rates, and recurrence-free survival. While PCA exhibits higher local recurrence rates than RAPN, it also presents significant advantages, such as shorter hospital stays, decreased operative durations, and lower complication rates. This juxtaposition underscores the urgent need for further, more rigorous research to substantiate these findings.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Percutaneous Microwave Ablation Therapy versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Early-Stage Renal Tumors

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of percutaneous microwave ablation therapy (MWAT) and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in early-stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) classified as T1a; a retrospective analysis was conducted on patients treated between January 2017 and November 2023. Oncological outcomes, radiological recurrence, length of stay (LOS), and costs were evaluated. The study included 110 patients, with no significant differences between the two groups regarding residual tumors, local tumor progression, and disease-free survival rates (p > 0.05). The LPN group showed significantly lower pre/postoperative serum urea and creatinine and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate values, whereas the MWA group experienced significantly lower mean costs, complication rates, LOS in the hospital, and procedure durations (p ≤ 0.05). However, post-procedure residual tumors and local tumor progression rates did not differ significantly between the LPN and MWAT groups (p > 0.05). MWAT is as effective as LPN for T1a RCC lesions. In addition, MWAT has lower costs than LPN and is a cost-effective treatment method. Therefore, MWAT minimizes hospital stay and complications and since the oncological results are similar to LPN, it might be considered as the first choice of treatment in young patients.

Percutaneous Microwave Ablation Versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Stage I Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study Focusing Upon Long-Term Follow-Up of Oncologic Outcomes

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare long-term oncologic outcomes of percutaneous computed tomography-guided microwave ablation (MWA) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for the treatment of stage 1 (T1a and T1b) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional database research identified all T1 RCC patients who underwent either MWA or RAPN. Models were adjusted with propensity score matching. Kaplan-Meier log-rank test analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare the oncologic outcomes. Patient and tumor characteristics, technical success as well as oncologic outcomes were evaluated and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a total of 71 patients underwent percutaneous MWA (mean age 70 ± 10 years) and 71 underwent RAPN (mean age 60 ± 9 years). At 8-year follow-up, the estimated survival rates for MWA cohort were 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95-100%) for overall survival, 97% (95% CI 93-100%) for recurrence-free survival, and 97% (95% CI 93-100%) for metastasis-free survival. The matched cohort that underwent RAPN exhibited survival rates of 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for overall survival, 98% (95% CI 94-100%) for recurrence-free survival, and 98% (95% CI 94-100%) for metastasis-free survival. After performing log-rank testing, these rates were not significantly different (p values of 0.44, 0.67, and 0.67, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study suggest that both MWA and RAPN are equally effective in terms of oncologic outcome for the treatment of T1 RCC.