Randomized trial shows PC-PEP improves psychological well-being in prostate cancer patients, indicating significant cost savings.
Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP), a six-month comprehensive intervention designed to enhance psychological well-being and reduce healthcare expenditures among prostate cancer patients. Methods: In a crossover randomized clinical trial of 128 men aged 50–82 years scheduled for curative prostate cancer surgery or radiotherapy (± hormone treatment), 66 men received the PC-PEP intervention immediately, while 62 were randomized to a waitlist-control arm and received standard care for six months before receiving PC-PEP. The intervention included daily activities targeting physical fitness, pelvic floor training, stress management, intimacy, social support, and dietary guidance. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare payer perspective using billing data from Nova Scotia’s Medical Services Insurance (MSI) and self-reported outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were calculated using bootstrapped samples. Psychological distress was assessed with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), while quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from SF-6D utility scores. Results: PC-PEP resulted in cost savings of $411.53 CAD per patient at six months, with a 30% reduction in clinically significant psychological distress and a QALY gain of 0.013. At 12 months, savings increased to $660.89 CAD per patient, preventing 31% of distress cases and yielding a QALY gain of 0.034. These outcomes demonstrate that PC-PEP is a dominant intervention, achieving both improved clinical outcomes and reduced healthcare expenditures. Conclusions: PC-PEP is a dominant, cost-effective strategy that significantly improves psychological well-being while lowering healthcare costs. Early implementation following prostate cancer diagnosis is strongly recommended to maximize both clinical and economic benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nuyens et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: