BibTex format
@article{Wang:2026:10.1016/j.euros.2026.08.007,
author = {Wang, J and Almeida-Magana, R and Dinneen, E and Pan, S and Leurent, B and Roberts, N and Brew-Graves, C and Williams, NR and Haider, A and Shaw, G and Pizzo, E},
doi = {10.1016/j.euros.2026.08.007},
journal = {European Urology Open Science},
pages = {55--63},
title = {Cost-utility of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP versus standard RARP in men with localised prostate cancer in the UK},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2026.08.007},
volume = {92},
year = {2026}
}
RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)
TY - JOUR
AB - BackgroundRobotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a standard first-line curative treatment for localised prostate cancer but carries risks of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. The NeuroSAFE technique provides pathological assessment to optimise nerve-sparing whilst avoiding positive surgical margins.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP compared with standard RARP.Design, setting and participantsA within-trial economic evaluation with a 12-month time horizon was conducted alongside NeuroSAFE-PROOF, a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial. Participants were patients with a diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer deemed suitable to undergo RARP, good erectile function without medical erectile function assistance, and no previous prostate cancer treatment. No age limits were applied.InterventionThe intervention is the NeuroSAFE-guided RARP.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisCosts were assessed from NHS and societal perspectives using patient-level data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured using EQ-5D-5L. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefits were estimated. Uncertainty was captured via bootstrapping, missing data were addressed through multiple imputation, and Monte Carlo simulations were undertaken to assess robustness.Results and limitationsAmong 407 randomised patients (NeuroSAFE: 204; standard RARP: 203), NeuroSAFE increased mean total cost (by £827 and £1,000 from NHS and societal perspectives, respectively) and QALYs (by 0.03). ICERs were £26,195/QALY (NHS) and £31,666/QALY (societal). Cost-effectiveness probabilities were 53% and 56% (NHS) and 48% and 56% (societal) at the lower and upper UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Limitations include substantial uncertainty around estimates, missing data, and potential recall bias from retrospectively collected data. Findings reflect short-term, within-trial estima
AU - Wang,J
AU - Almeida-Magana,R
AU - Dinneen,E
AU - Pan,S
AU - Leurent,B
AU - Roberts,N
AU - Brew-Graves,C
AU - Williams,NR
AU - Haider,A
AU - Shaw,G
AU - Pizzo,E
DO - 10.1016/j.euros.2026.08.007
EP - 63
PY - 2026///
SN - 2666-1691
SP - 55
TI - Cost-utility of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP versus standard RARP in men with localised prostate cancer in the UK
T2 - European Urology Open Science
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2026.08.007
UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666168326011808
VL - 92
ER -