TY - JOUR
T1 - Regional Cost Variations of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Compared with Open Radical Prostatectomy
AU - Faiena, Izak
AU - Dombrovskiy, Viktor Y.
AU - Modi, Parth K.
AU - Patel, Neal
AU - Patel, Rutveej
AU - Salmasi, Amirali H.
AU - Parihar, Jaspreet S.
AU - Singer, Eric A.
AU - Kim, Isaac Y.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute ( P30CA072720 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/10/1
Y1 - 2015/10/1
N2 - Introduction: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the cost differences between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in various census regions of the United States because RARP has been reported to be more expensive than ORP with significant regional cost variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) cost across the United States. Patients and Methods: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with prostate cancer who underwent RARP or ORP from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2009 to 2011. Hospital costs were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and multivariable linear regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. Results: From the NIS database, 24,636 RARP and 13,590 ORP procedures were identified and evaluated. The lowest cost overall was in the South; the highest cost RARP was in the West and for ORP in the Northeast. In multivariable analysis, adjusted according to patient and hospital characteristics, RARP was 43.3% more costly in the Midwest, 37.2% more costly in the South, and 39.1% more costly in the West (P <.0001 for all). In contrast, the cost for RARP in the Northeast was 12.8% less than for ORP (P <.0001). Conclusion: Cost for RP significantly varies within the nation and in most regions it is significantly greater for RARP than for ORP. ORP in the Northeast is more costly than RARP. Further research is needed to delineate the reason for these differences and to optimize the cost of RP.
AB - Introduction: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the cost differences between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in various census regions of the United States because RARP has been reported to be more expensive than ORP with significant regional cost variations in radical prostatectomy (RP) cost across the United States. Patients and Methods: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with prostate cancer who underwent RARP or ORP from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2009 to 2011. Hospital costs were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and multivariable linear regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. Results: From the NIS database, 24,636 RARP and 13,590 ORP procedures were identified and evaluated. The lowest cost overall was in the South; the highest cost RARP was in the West and for ORP in the Northeast. In multivariable analysis, adjusted according to patient and hospital characteristics, RARP was 43.3% more costly in the Midwest, 37.2% more costly in the South, and 39.1% more costly in the West (P <.0001 for all). In contrast, the cost for RARP in the Northeast was 12.8% less than for ORP (P <.0001). Conclusion: Cost for RP significantly varies within the nation and in most regions it is significantly greater for RARP than for ORP. ORP in the Northeast is more costly than RARP. Further research is needed to delineate the reason for these differences and to optimize the cost of RP.
KW - Cost
KW - Nationwide inpatient sample
KW - Open prostatectomy
KW - Regional variation
KW - Robotic radical prostatectomy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941599006&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941599006&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.05.004
DO - 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.05.004
M3 - Article
C2 - 26065923
AN - SCOPUS:84941599006
SN - 1558-7673
VL - 13
SP - 447
EP - 452
JO - Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
JF - Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
IS - 5
ER -