Conclusions
BLADDER CANCER
The findings of this economic evaluation suggest that iRARC was more effective in reducing short-term morbidity compared with ORC for patients with bladder cancer. This was mirrored by reductions in inpatient stay, admissions to an intensive therapy unit, and readmissions. However, these cost offsets were smaller than the cost increases associated with theater time and equipment. The resulting ICER was in excess of thresholds set by most publicly funded health systems and schemes; however, patient subgroups were identified for which iRARC had a probability of being cost-effective of more than 75%. Future research should examine patient subgroups and service settings where iRARC is most cost-effective, including an assessment of recovery using patient-reported outcome measures.