How are you taking part in this consultation?

You will not be able to change how you comment later.

You must be signed in to answer questions

  • Question on Consultation

    Has all of the relevant evidence been taken into account?

  • Question on Consultation

    Are the summaries of clinical and resource savings reasonable interpretations of the evidence?

  • Question on Consultation

    Are the recommendations sound and a suitable basis for guidance to the NHS?

  • Question on Consultation

    Are there any equality issues that need special consideration and are not covered in the medical technology consultation document?
The content on this page is not current guidance and is only for the purposes of the consultation process.

GreenLight XPS for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (update of MTG29)

Closed for comments This consultation ended on at   Request commenting lead permission

4 Committee discussion

Clinical-effectiveness overview

GreenLight XPS is effective and has clinical benefits for the general population

4.1 The committee concluded that the new evidence on GreenLight XPS showed its effectiveness in relieving the lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Evidence also suggested that, compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), GreenLight XPS was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays, significantly shorter postoperative catheterisation, and significantly higher preservation of ejaculatory function at 12 months compared with TURP. The clinical experts confirmed that, in their experience, GreenLight XPS is an effective treatment option for people with BPH. The committee noted that there are no randomised trials that directly compare GreenLight XPS with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), and no new randomised trials with TURP (other than the GOLIATH study). But it was satisfied that the available trial evidence, alongside real-world evidence and expert opinion, showed the clinical benefits associated with GreenLight XPS in practice.

There is new evidence in high-risk populations, but comparative evidence is limited

4.2 The committee noted that most of the evidence included people considered as high risk, but there was little comparative data in these groups exclusively. The external assessment centre (EAC) highlighted the possible ethical challenges in getting randomised comparative evidence in these high-risk groups. The committee agreed that a large volume of evidence has been published after the original guidance but the comparative evidence in high-risk populations remains limited.

Clinicians do not consider people with urinary retention to have a higher risk of complications

4.3 Clinical experts described how the risk profile of people with BPH has changed in practice since the previous guidance. They explained that urinary retention is common in people being treated for BPH (up to 50% of the population). The committee was satisfied that GreenLight XPS has been used for treating BPH in people with urinary retention, who are not now considered as a high-risk group in practice.

GreenLight XPS is considered to be a safe and effective treatment option for people with a higher risk of bleeding and large prostates

4.4 The clinical experts said that they considered GreenLight XPS to be a safe treatment option for people at a higher risk of bleeding or who were taking anticoagulants. They estimated that 20% of people having GreenLight XPS were in this high-risk group. The clinical experts said that anticoagulants can usually be taken through GreenLight XPS surgery, unlike with TURP. They said this means people who were at risk of bleeding could be referred across hospitals for treatment with GreenLight XPS. The clinical experts also advised that treatment for people with large prostates may be more varied because of laser technology availability and clinicians' experience. All of them considered that using GreenLight XPS to treat BPH was safe with prostates up to 100 ml in volume. They agreed that up to 150 ml was appropriate for GreenLight XPS if the clinician was experienced. People with prostates bigger than 150 ml are more likely to be considered for HoLEP treatment. The committee understood prostate size was a key factor in how long the procedure may take, so patient selection and the clinician's experience were important considerations in this high-risk group. The committee was satisfied that the evidence showed the clinical effectiveness of GreenLight XPS in BPH in larger prostates and people with a high risk of bleeding but concluded that more comparative evidence on the use of GreenLight XPS in these groups is needed.

Side effects and adverse events

Risk of bleeding is low with GreenLight XPS

4.5 Evidence from 12 studies reported that between 0% and 2.2% of people needed blood transfusions intraoperatively and 0.6% and 0.8% within 30 days. Seventeen studies recorded 0.1% to 5.6% of people with capsular perforation. Six studies reported no adverse events. The clinical experts explained that GreenLight XPS was rarely associated with postoperative bleeding. They said that continuous bladder irrigation (to prevent clot formation) was not normally needed after GreenLight XPS surgery, which reduces nursing requirements and improves the patient experience. Three-way catheters can help identify any issues with secondary bleeds, but clinical experts reported bleed risk to be low. The committee was satisfied that the risk of bleeding is low with GreenLight XPS.

Fibre breakage is rare and does not affect the person having treatment

4.6 The company said that fibre breakage was rare, and that it had modified the device to promote the cooling of the fibres, to minimise breakage. The EAC confirmed that there were no concerns over device safety and no adverse events related to patient harm. The clinical experts agreed that fibre breakage was rare (around 1 in 200 cases) and was not associated with patient harm. They explained that fibre breakage is more likely when a clinician first started to use the device because they may position the fibre too close to the tissue. The committee was satisfied that there were no patient or clinician safety concerns about fibre breakage.

Relevance to the NHS

GreenLight XPS is available for treating BPH in the NHS

4.7 The company confirmed that GreenLight XPS is used in 26 specialist centres in the UK. The clinical experts explained that GreenLight XPS is used routinely in people needing surgical treatment for BPH, including those in the high-risk groups (people with large prostates, people with higher risk of bleeding). GreenLight XPS is one of the technologies covered by the MedTech funding mandate in 2022 to 2023.

NHS considerations overview

GreenLight XPS can be done as a day case procedure, but some people need to stay overnight

4.8 The evidence reported that 68% of GreenLight XPS procedures were done as a day case (Trail et al. 2021). The clinical experts said that in their experience most people having GreenLight XPS are seen as a day case and do not need hospital admission. One said that, compared with TURP or HoLEP, GreenLight XPS is more likely to be a day case procedure. But they added that it depended on individual circumstances, such as the size of their prostate gland, social reasons, and the use of anaesthetics, which may mean some people needed an overnight stay.

There may be benefits to GreenLight XPS with respect to learning curves and training

4.9 The clinical experts explained that urologists need specialist training to use GreenLight XPS. But they suggested that GreenLight XPS may be quicker to learn than TURP or HoLEP. The clinical experts also highlighted the importance of minimum procedure levels across centres to ensure skills are maintained.

Laser equipment and safety training are required, but the costs are negligible

4.10 The clinical experts said that laser treatment is available across urology departments for treating conditions such as kidney stones and BPH. Urologists are routinely trained in laser techniques and laser safety. Using GreenLight XPS requires laser equipment, including goggles. The cost of the equipment was not included in the cost model. The EAC considered that laser equipment is reusable with a long life span and that costs would be negligible. The committee was satisfied that this would not be a significant additional cost requirement for services.

Equality considerations

Two people who identify as women have had GreenLight XPS

4.11 The committee was told that 2 people who identified as women and retained a prostate had GreenLight XPS treatment. No change in technique or concerns in carrying out the procedure in this population were reported.

Cost modelling overview

GreenLight XPS is estimated to be cost saving compared with standard treatments but by how much is uncertain in high-risk groups

4.12 The EAC's cost modelling results from the Markov model showed that GreenLight XPS is likely to be cost saving compared with TURP by £305 per person over 5 years. They showed that it was also likely to be cost saving compared with HoLEP by £270 per person over 5 years. The estimates applied to all people with BPH, including those considered to be high risk. The EAC considered the model to accurately reflect treatment complication and retreatment costs but that the size of the cost savings was uncertain in high-risk groups because of a lack of comparative evidence. The clinical experts also advised that modelling high-risk populations collectively may not be appropriate or generalisable to clinical practice. The committee concluded that the EAC's approach to modelling using the GOLIATH data was appropriate, and that using GreenLight XPS is likely to be cost saving but by how much is uncertain in high-risk groups.

Main cost drivers in the Markov model

Length of stay affects GreenLight XPS's cost case

4.13 Length of stay was one of the key drivers of the estimated cost savings with GreenLight XPS compared with standard treatments such as TURP in the Markov model. GreenLight XPS becomes cost-incurring if the length of stay with TURP is reduced to a level similar to GreenLight XPS. Length of stay was not a key driver in the original guidance, because the decision tree model presented it as the proportion of day cases, which was the key driver (assessment report update, 2022). The clinical experts said that people having GreenLight XPS are likely to be discharged on the day and are not usually admitted to hospital after the procedure. However, the length of stay is likely to be influenced by personal factors and hospital infrastructure (for instance, some hospitals have extended opening hours for day-case surgery). The clinical experts agreed that the scenarios of length of stay or proportion of day cases that would make GreenLight XPS cost-incurring are unlikely in clinical practice. However, given there is uncertainty in the size of the cost saving from length of stay in the Markov model, the committee suggested more data collection on this would be valuable.

Length of procedure affects GreenLight XPS's cost case

4.14 The economic analysis included an assumed average procedure length of 49.6 minutes for GreenLight XPS, 66 minutes for TURP and 80 minutes for HoLEP. The clinical experts considered these procedure durations to be reasonable. However, they advised that duration is affected by prostate size and the clinician's experience. The clinical experts said that using GreenLight XPS for larger prostates might extend procedure duration. This could reduce the cost saving of using GreenLight XPS compared with TURP or HoLEP. However, it should be noted that there is a lack of data on procedural duration. The committee agreed that more comparative data, including audit data, would be helpful to inform the uncertainty in the cost benefit of length of stay across the comparators.

Further data collection

The committee would like to see more robust comparative evidence in high-risk groups

4.15 The committee agreed that more data on the efficacy of GreenLight XPS compared with other treatments is needed in the high-risk groups (higher risk of bleeding and large prostates, greater than 100 ml). It recommended collecting more data to address the efficacy of GreenLight XPS directly compared with other treatments, including the length of hospital stay and the procedure duration, in high-risk groups.