Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Craig R Ramsay; Temitope E Adewuyi; Joanne Gray; Jenni Hislop; Mark Df Shirley; Shalmini Jayakody; Graeme MacLennan; Cynthia Fraser; Sara MacLennan; Miriam Brazzelli; James N'Dow; Robert Pickard; Clare Robertson; Kieran Rothnie; Stephen P Rushton; Luke Vale; Thomas B Lam

doi:10.3310/hta19490

Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Craig R Ramsay^* (Corresponding Author), Temitope E Adewuyi, Joanne Gray, Jenni Hislop, Mark Df Shirley, Shalmini Jayakody, Graeme MacLennan, Cynthia Fraser, Sara MacLennan, Miriam Brazzelli, James N'Dow, Robert Pickard, Clare Robertson, Kieran Rothnie, Stephen P Rushton, Luke Vale, Thomas B Lam

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

78 Citations (Scopus)

115 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources.

REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS: The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research.

LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-524
Number of pages	524
Journal	Health Technology Assessment
Volume	19
Issue number	49
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19490
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2015

Bibliographical note

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 10/136/01. The contractual start date was in April 2012. The draft report began editorial review in October 2013 and was accepted for publication in April 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft
document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Acknowledgements
We thank l the people recruited from the local UCAN for providing valuable consumer insight and advice through their participation as members of the project focus group:
- Mark Emberton (Professor of Interventional Oncology), Damian Greene (consultant urologist), Axel Heidenreich (Professor and Director of Department of Urology), Christoph von Klot (specialist in brachytherapy), Roger Kockelbergh (BAUS chairman and Clinical Director of Urology) and Axel Merserburger (Deputy Clinical Director of Urology and Urologic Oncology) for providing their clinical expertise as members of the project advisory group
- Edgar Paez (consultant urologist) and Gill Lawrence (Head of Radiotherapy Physics) for providing a list of staff time by grade and specialty involved in EBRT
- Debbie Bennett (Radiotherapy Service Manager) for providing estimates for the expected number of uses for EBRT
- Ian Pedley (clinical director/clinical oncologist) and Gill Lawrence for providing a list of all resource inputs relevant to brachytherapy
- Steve Locks (Consultant Clinical Scientist in Radiotherapy) for providing a list of reusable equipment and consumables used during brachytherapy, along with their unit costs
- Sue Asterling (urology research nurse) and Mark Kelly (Acting Divisional General Manager – Theatres) for providing a list of all resource inputs relevant to cryotherapy
- Lara Kemp for providing secretarial support.
The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.3310/hta19490Licence: Unspecified

Ramsay_etal_HTA_Ablative_Therapy_For_VOR
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Ramsay et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Final published version, 5.4 MBLicence: Other

Miriam Brazzelli
- School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, Aberdeen Centre for Evaluation - Personal Chair
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences
Person: Academic, Academic Related - Research
Thomas Lam
- School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, Applied Health Sciences - Honorary Senior Lecturer
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences
- School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, Academic Urology Unit
Person: Honorary
Graeme MacLennan
Person: Academic, Academic Related - Research

Cite this

Ramsay, C. R., Adewuyi, T. E., Gray, J., Hislop, J., Shirley, M. D., Jayakody, S., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., MacLennan, S., Brazzelli, M., N'Dow, J., Pickard, R., Robertson, C., Rothnie, K., Rushton, S. P., Vale, L., & Lam, T. B. (2015). Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 19(49), 1-524. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19490

Ramsay, CR, Adewuyi, TE, Gray, J, Hislop, J, Shirley, MD, Jayakody, S, MacLennan, G, Fraser, C, MacLennan, S , Brazzelli, M , N'Dow, J, Pickard, R, Robertson, C, Rothnie, K, Rushton, SP, Vale, L & Lam, TB 2015, 'Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation', Health Technology Assessment, vol. 19, no. 49, pp. 1-524. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19490

@article{fced535935f7494e88a92f0a1e9b14cd,

title = "Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others.OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources.REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research.LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction.CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes.STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461.FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.",

author = "Ramsay, {Craig R} and Adewuyi, {Temitope E} and Joanne Gray and Jenni Hislop and Shirley, {Mark Df} and Shalmini Jayakody and Graeme MacLennan and Cynthia Fraser and Sara MacLennan and Miriam Brazzelli and James N'Dow and Robert Pickard and Clare Robertson and Kieran Rothnie and Rushton, {Stephen P} and Luke Vale and Lam, {Thomas B}",

note = "The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 10/136/01. The contractual start date was in April 2012. The draft report began editorial review in October 2013 and was accepted for publication in April 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors{\textquoteright} report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Acknowledgements We thank l the people recruited from the local UCAN for providing valuable consumer insight and advice through their participation as members of the project focus group: - Mark Emberton (Professor of Interventional Oncology), Damian Greene (consultant urologist), Axel Heidenreich (Professor and Director of Department of Urology), Christoph von Klot (specialist in brachytherapy), Roger Kockelbergh (BAUS chairman and Clinical Director of Urology) and Axel Merserburger (Deputy Clinical Director of Urology and Urologic Oncology) for providing their clinical expertise as members of the project advisory group - Edgar Paez (consultant urologist) and Gill Lawrence (Head of Radiotherapy Physics) for providing a list of staff time by grade and specialty involved in EBRT - Debbie Bennett (Radiotherapy Service Manager) for providing estimates for the expected number of uses for EBRT - Ian Pedley (clinical director/clinical oncologist) and Gill Lawrence for providing a list of all resource inputs relevant to brachytherapy - Steve Locks (Consultant Clinical Scientist in Radiotherapy) for providing a list of reusable equipment and consumables used during brachytherapy, along with their unit costs - Sue Asterling (urology research nurse) and Mark Kelly (Acting Divisional General Manager – Theatres) for providing a list of all resource inputs relevant to cryotherapy - Lara Kemp for providing secretarial support. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates.",

year = "2015",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.3310/hta19490",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "1--524",

journal = "Health Technology Assessment",

issn = "1366-5278",

publisher = "National Co-ordinating Centre for HTA",

number = "49",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer

T2 - a systematic review and economic evaluation

AU - Ramsay, Craig R

AU - Adewuyi, Temitope E

AU - Gray, Joanne

AU - Hislop, Jenni

AU - Shirley, Mark Df

AU - Jayakody, Shalmini

AU - MacLennan, Graeme

AU - Fraser, Cynthia

AU - MacLennan, Sara

AU - Brazzelli, Miriam

AU - N'Dow, James

AU - Pickard, Robert

AU - Robertson, Clare

AU - Rothnie, Kieran

AU - Rushton, Stephen P

AU - Vale, Luke

AU - Lam, Thomas B

N1 - The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 10/136/01. The contractual start date was in April 2012. The draft report began editorial review in October 2013 and was accepted for publication in April 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Acknowledgements We thank l the people recruited from the local UCAN for providing valuable consumer insight and advice through their participation as members of the project focus group: - Mark Emberton (Professor of Interventional Oncology), Damian Greene (consultant urologist), Axel Heidenreich (Professor and Director of Department of Urology), Christoph von Klot (specialist in brachytherapy), Roger Kockelbergh (BAUS chairman and Clinical Director of Urology) and Axel Merserburger (Deputy Clinical Director of Urology and Urologic Oncology) for providing their clinical expertise as members of the project advisory group - Edgar Paez (consultant urologist) and Gill Lawrence (Head of Radiotherapy Physics) for providing a list of staff time by grade and specialty involved in EBRT - Debbie Bennett (Radiotherapy Service Manager) for providing estimates for the expected number of uses for EBRT - Ian Pedley (clinical director/clinical oncologist) and Gill Lawrence for providing a list of all resource inputs relevant to brachytherapy - Steve Locks (Consultant Clinical Scientist in Radiotherapy) for providing a list of reusable equipment and consumables used during brachytherapy, along with their unit costs - Sue Asterling (urology research nurse) and Mark Kelly (Acting Divisional General Manager – Theatres) for providing a list of all resource inputs relevant to cryotherapy - Lara Kemp for providing secretarial support. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates.

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others.OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources.REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research.LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction.CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes.STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461.FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

AB - BACKGROUND: For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others.OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources.REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research.LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction.CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes.STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461.FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

U2 - 10.3310/hta19490

DO - 10.3310/hta19490

M3 - Article

C2 - 26140518

SN - 1366-5278

VL - 19

SP - 1

EP - 524

JO - Health Technology Assessment

JF - Health Technology Assessment

IS - 49

ER -

Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Profiles

Miriam Brazzelli

Thomas Lam

Graeme MacLennan

Cite this