Table 2 Cost-effectiveness results.

From: The ProtecT randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing active monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Allocation arm

na

Adjustedb costs (£) Mean (95% CI)

Adjustedb QALYs Mean (95% CI)

Comparison

Incremental cost (£) (95% CI)c

Incremental QALY (95% CI)d

ICER (£/QALY)d

Incremental NMB (£) at £20,000/ QALY (95% CI)

Active monitoring (AM)

370

5913 (5494–6332)

6.976 (6.798–7.154)

     

Radiotherapy (RT)

364

7361 (6938–7783)

7.093 (6.914–7.273)

RT vs. AM

1448 (803–2061)

0.118 (−0.141 to 0.368)

12,310

904 (−4181 to 5990)

Radical prostatectomy (RP)

367

7519 (7099–7940)

6.909 (6.731–7.087)

RP vs. RT

159 (−410 to 747)

−0.184 (−0.431 to 0.073)

RT dominatese RP

−3847 (−8940 to 1245)

  1. aIncluding only 1101 participants for whom we have complete cost and QALY information.
  2. bAdjusted for the minimisation variables of the randomisation process: study centre, age at baseline, Gleason score (2–6, 7, 8–10) and PSA at baseline. QALYs were also adjusted for baseline utility.
  3. cBias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap replications.
  4. dThe ICER cannot be estimated directly from the incremental costs and QALYs due to rounding.
  5. eDominates means that the treatment is less costly and more effective than the other treatment.
Back to article page