Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to understand the short- and long-term costs of treating localized, low-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Given the costs of delivering care for men with prostate cancer remain poorly described, this article reports the results of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for competing treatments of low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Process maps were developed for each phase of care from the initial urologic visit through 12 years of follow-up for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), cryotherapy, high-dose rate (HDR) and low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and active surveillance (AS). The last modality incorporated both traditional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy and multiparametric-MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. The costs of materials, equipment, personnel, and space were calculated per unit of time and based on the relative proportion of capacity used. TDABC for each treatment was defined as the sum of its resources. RESULTS: Substantial cost variation was observed at 5 years, with costs ranging from $7,298 for AS to $23,565 for IMRT, and they remained consistent through 12 years of follow-up. LDR brachytherapy ($8,978) was notably cheaper than HDR brachytherapy ($11,448), and SBRT ($11,665) was notably cheaper than IMRT, with the cost savings attributable to shorter procedure times and fewer visits required for treatment. Both equipment costs and an inpatient stay ($2,306) contributed to the high cost of RALP ($16,946). Cryotherapy ($11,215) was more costly than LDR brachytherapy, largely because of increased single-use equipment costs ($6,292 vs $1,921). AS reached cost equivalence with LDR brachytherapy after 7 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TDABC is feasible for analyzing cancer services and provides insights into cost-reduction tactics in an era focused on emphasizing value. By detailing all steps from diagnosis and treatment through 12 years of follow-up for low-risk prostate cancer, this study has demonstrated significant cost variation between competing treatments.

Determining the True Costs of Treating Small Renal Masses Using Time Driven, Activity Based Costing.

INTRODUCTION: We report the implementation of time driven, activity based costing for competing treatments of small renal masses at an academic referral center. METHODS: To use time driven, activity based costing we developed a process map outlining the steps to treat small renal masses. We then derived the costs of supplying every resource per unit time. Known as the capacity cost rate, this included equipment and its depreciation (eg price per minute of the operating room table), personnel and space (eg cost per minute to rent clinic space). We multiplied each capacity cost rate by the time for each step. Time driven, activity based costing was defined as the sum of the products for each intervention. RESULTS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was the most expensive treatment for small renal masses. It was 69.7% more costly than the most inexpensive inpatient modality, laparoscopic radical nephrectomy ($17,841.79 vs $10,514.05). Equipment costs were greater for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy than for open partial nephrectomy. However for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy vs open partial nephrectomy the lower personnel capacity cost rate due to faster operating room time (195.2 vs 217.3 minutes, p = 0.001) and shorter length of stay (2.4 vs 3.7 days, p = 0.13) were the primary drivers in lowering costs. Radiofrequency ablation was 48.4% less expensive than laparoscopic radical nephrectomy ($5,093.83 vs $10,514.05) largely by avoiding inpatient costs. Renal biopsy contributed 3.5% vs 12.2% to the overall cost of robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs radiofrequency ablation but it may allow for increased active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Using time driven, activity based costing we determined the relative resource utilization of competing small renal mass treatments, finding significant cost differences among various treatments. This informs value considerations, which are particularly relevant in the current health care milieu.

Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traditional grayscale ultrasonography has poor discrimination between benign and malignant areas within the prostate. Current biopsy techniques commonly miss prostate cancer when present within the gland, with the majority of prostate biopsies negative for cancer. Enhanced ultrasound (US) modalities may improve the visualization of the prostate and better detect foci of prostate cancer. These enhanced US modalities include intravenous contrast enhancement, to better visualize areas with increased blood flow within the prostate, which may be indicative of latent prostate cancer. We reviewed the current literature for contrast-enhanced transrectal prostate ultrasonography. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous American and international studies demonstrate improved prostate cancer detection when contrast-enhanced US biopsy techniques are used. Enhanced US modalities include the use of harmonic imaging and flash replenishment techniques, as well as quantitative measurement of blood flow within the prostate. Vascular areas visualized with these techniques targeted for prostate biopsy yield improved prostate cancer detection rates. US contrast microbubbles linked to antibodies or small molecules may also allow targeted visualization and delivery of agents to the prostate. SUMMARY: Enhanced US modalities with intravenous contrast enhancement dramatically improve vascular imaging and resolution within the prostate. Targeted biopsies have higher yield for prostate cancer detection, and may prove useful for the initial evaluation of patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as for patients with persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen after negative prostate biopsy.

Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator.

OBJECTIVE: To report on assessments of face, content, and construct validity for the commercially available da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS). METHODS: A total of 38 subjects participated in this prospective study. Participants were classified as novice (0 robotic cases performed), intermediate (1-74 robotic cases), or expert (≥ 75 robotic cases). Each subject completed 5 exercises. Using the metrics available in the simulator software, the performances of each group were compared to evaluate construct validation. Immediately after completion of the exercises, each subject completed a questionnaire to evaluate face and content validation. RESULTS: The novice group consisted of 18 medical students and 1 resident. The intermediate group included 6 residents, 1 fellow, and 2 faculty urologist. The expert group consisted of 2 residents, 1 fellow, and 7 faculty surgeons. The mean number of robotic cases performed by the intermediate and expert groups was 29.2 and 233.4, respectively. An overall significant difference was observed in favor of the more experienced group in 4 skill sets. When intermediates and experts were combined into a single "experienced" group, they significantly outperformed novices in all 5 exercises. Intermediates and experts rated various elements of the simulators realism at an average of 4.1/5 and 4.3/5, respectively. All intermediate and expert participants rated the simulator's value as a training tool as 4/5 or 5/5. CONCLUSION: Our study supports the face, content, and construct validation attributed to the dVSS. These results indicate that the simulator may be most useful to novice surgeons seeking basic robot skills acquisition.