Systematic review and economic modelling of effectiveness and cost utility of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement

Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of procedures alternative to TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate) for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) unresponsive to expectant, non-surgical treatments.
Data sources: Electronic searches of 13 databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Review methods: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data. The International Prostate Symptom Score/American Urological Association (IPSS/AUA) symptom score was the primary outcome; others included quality of life, peak urine flow rate and adverse effects. Costeffectiveness was assessed using a Markov model reflecting likely care pathways.
Results: 156 reports describing 88 RCTs were included. Most had fewer than 100 participants (range 12–234). TURP provided consistent, high-level, longterm symptomatic improvement. Minimally invasive procedures resulted in less marked improvement. Ablative procedures gave improvements equivalent to TURP. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) additionally resulted in greater improvement in flow rate. HoLEP is unique amongst the newer technologies in offering an advantage in urodynamic outcomes over TURP, although long-term follow-up data are lacking. Severe blood loss was more common
following TURP. Rates of incontinence were similar across all interventions other than transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and laser coagulation, for which lower rates were reported. Acute retention and reoperation were commoner with newer technologies, especially minimally invasive interventions. The economic model suggested that minimally invasive procedures were unlikely to be cost-effective compared with TURP. Transurethral vaporisation of the prostate (TUVP) was both less costly and less effective than TURP. HoLEP was estimated to be more cost-effective than a single TURP but less effective than a strategy involving repeat TURP if necessary. The base-case analysis suggested an 80% chance that TUVP, followed by HoLEP if required, would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. At a £50,000 threshold, TUVP, followed by TURP as required, would be cost-effective, although considerable uncertainty surrounds this finding. The main limitations are the quantity and quality of the data available, in the context of multiple comparisons.
Conclusions: In the absence of strong evidence in favour of newer methods, the standard – TURP – remains both clinically effective and cost-effective. There is a need for further research to establish (i) how many years of medical treatment are necessary to offset the cost of treatment with a minimally invasive or ablative intervention; (ii) more cost-effective alternatives to TURP; and (iii) strategies to improve outcomes after TURP.