OBJECTIVES : To systematically collect and evaluate literature on health economic evidence (HCRU, costs and CEA) related to MIUC patients treated with RR.

METHODS : An SLR was conducted by two independent reviewers to identify publications up to February 13, 2021, which report HCRU, costs and/or CEA for invasive UC patients treated with RR. Reviewed databases and sources included: MEDLINE (In-Process), Embase, EconLit, CRD NHS EED, CRD HTA, conference proceedings and HTA websites.

RESULTS : In total, 29 publications reporting data from 23 unique HCRU/cost studies and 3 unique CEA studies were identified. The HCRU/cost studies had either a prospective (n=4), retrospective (n=18) or unclear (n=1) design. Studies were conducted globally in 10 countries, most frequently in the United States (n=14). In total, 17 studies reported length of stay (LOS) for RR, 12 studies reported HCRU for RR other than LOS, 14 studies documented direct treatment costs, and only one study investigated indirect costs (productivity loss). Most studies (n=11) compared LOS, HCRU or costs for different RR approaches (e.g., robot-assisted RR vs. open RR). None of the cost studies reported costs for adjuvant treatment after RR. Two CEA studies reported to include costs for adjuvant treatment after RR for a subset of patients using literature on adjuvant chemotherapy for other solid tumors and locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer as a cost source.

CONCLUSIONS : LOS, HCRU and costs data are available in the literature only if they are associated with RR but not for adjuvant treatment after RR in MIUC patients. None of the CEA studies investigated adjuvant treatment after RR as the main intervention or comparator. Further research is needed to gain insight in HCRU and costs related to adjuvant treatment for MIUC patients treated with RR.