Dataset Information

Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Unlabelled

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Multiple treatment alternatives exist for localised prostate cancer, with few high-quality studies directly comparing their comparative effectiveness and costs. The present study is the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to date for localised prostate cancer, conducted with a lifetime horizon and accounting for survival, health-related quality-of-life, and cost impact of secondary treatments and other downstream events, as well as primary treatment choices. The analysis found minor differences, generally slightly favouring surgical methods, in quality-adjusted life years across treatment options. However, radiation therapy (RT) was consistently more expensive than surgery, and some alternatives, e.g. intensity-modulated RT for low-risk disease, were dominated - that is, both more expensive and less effective than competing alternatives.

Objective

To characterise the costs and outcomes associated with radical prostatectomy (open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted) and radiation therapy (RT: dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, brachytherapy, or combination), using a comprehensive, lifetime decision analytical model.

Patients and methods

A Markov model was constructed to follow hypothetical men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer over their lifetimes after primary treatment; probabilities of outcomes were based on an exhaustive literature search yielding 232 unique publications. In each Markov cycle, patients could have remission, recurrence, salvage treatment, metastasis, death from prostate cancer, and death from other causes. Utilities for each health state were determined, and disutilities were applied for complications and toxicities of treatment. Costs were determined from the USA payer perspective, with incorporation of patient costs in a sensitivity analysis.

Results

Differences across treatments in quality-adjusted life years across methods were modest, ranging from 10.3 to 11.3 for low-risk patients, 9.6-10.5 for intermediate-risk patients and 7.8-9.3 for high-risk patients. There were no statistically significant differences among surgical methods, which tended to be more effective than RT methods, with the exception of combined external beam + brachytherapy for high-risk disease. RT methods were consistently more expensive than surgical methods; costs ranged from $19?901 (robot-assisted prostatectomy for low-risk disease) to $50?276 (combined RT for high-risk disease). These findings were robust to an extensive set of sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Our analysis found small differences in outcomes and substantial differences in payer and patient costs across treatment alternatives. These findings may inform future policy discussions about strategies to improve efficiency of treatment selection for localised prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Cooperberg MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3587031 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.

Cooperberg Matthew R MR Ramakrishna Naren R NR Duff Steven B SB Hughes Kathleen E KE Sadownik Sara S Smith Joseph A JA Tewari Ashutosh K AK

BJU international 20121228 3

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Multiple treatment alternatives exist for localised prostate cancer, with few high-quality studies directly comparing their comparative effectiveness and costs. The present study is the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to date for localised prostate cancer, conducted with a lifetime horizon and accounting for survival, health-related quality-of-life, and cost impact of secondary treatments and other downs ...[more]

PMID: 23279038

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOptimal management strategies for clinically localised prostate cancer are debated. Using median 10-year data from the largest randomised controlled trial to date (ProtecT), the lifetime cost-effectiveness of three major treatments (radical radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy and active monitoring) was explored according to age and risk subgroups.MethodsA decision-analytic (Markov) model was developed and informed by clinical input. The economic evaluation adopted a UK NHS perspective and the outcome was cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained (reported in UK£), estimated using EQ-5D-3L.ResultsCosts and QALYs extrapolated over the lifetime were mostly similar between the three randomised strategies and their subgroups, but with some important differences. Across all analyses, active monitoring was associated with higher costs, probably associated with higher rates of metastatic disease and changes to radical treatments. When comparing the value of the strategies (QALY gains and costs) in monetary terms, for both low-risk prostate cancer subgroups, radiotherapy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£293,446 [95% CI £282,811 to £299,451] by D'Amico and £292,736 [95% CI £284,074 to £297,719] by Grade group 1). However, the sensitivity analysis highlighted uncertainty in the finding when stratified by Grade group, as radiotherapy had 53% probability of cost-effectiveness and prostatectomy had 43%. In intermediate/high risk groups, using D'Amico and Grade group > = 2, prostatectomy generated the greatest net monetary benefit (£275,977 [95% CI £258,630 to £285,474] by D'Amico and £271,933 [95% CI £237,864 to £287,784] by Grade group). This finding was supported by the sensitivity analysis. Prostatectomy had the greatest net benefit (£290,487 [95% CI £280,781 to £296,281]) for men younger than 65 and radical radiotherapy (£201,311 [95% CI £195,161 to £205,049]) for men older than 65, but sensitivity analysis showed considerable uncertainty in both findings.ConclusionOver the lifetime, extrapolating from the ProtecT trial, radical radiotherapy and prostatectomy appeared to be cost-effective for low risk prostate cancer, and radical prostatectomy for intermediate/high risk prostate cancer, but there was uncertainty in some estimates. Longer ProtecT trial follow-up is required to reduce uncertainty in the model.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making.Patients and methodsMen aged 50-69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores.ResultsTreatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL.ConclusionTreatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic pathway is undergoing a radical change with the introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), genomic testing, and different prostate biopsy techniques. It has been proposed that these tests should be used in a sequential manner to optimise risk stratification.ObjectiveTo characterise the genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic features of mpMRI-visible and -nonvisible PCa in clinically localised disease.Design, setting, and participantsMulticore analysis of fresh prostate tissue sampled immediately after radical prostatectomy was performed for intermediate- to high-risk PCa.InterventionLow-pass whole-genome, exome, methylation, and transcriptome profiling of patient tissue cores taken from microscopically benign and cancerous areas in the same prostate. Circulating free and germline DNA was assessed from the blood of five patients.Outcome measurement and statistical analysisCorrelations between preoperative mpMRI and genomic characteristics of tumour and benign prostate samples were assessed. Gene profiles for individual tumour cores were correlated with existing genomic classifiers currently used for prognostication.Results and limitationsA total of 43 prostate cores (22 tumour and 21 benign) were profiled from six whole prostate glands. Of the 22 tumour cores, 16 were tumours visible and six were tumours nonvisible on mpMRI. Intratumour genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic heterogeneity was found within mpMRI-visible lesions. This could potentially lead to misclassification of patients using signatures based on copy number or RNA expression. Moreover, three of the six cores obtained from mpMRI-nonvisible tumours harboured one or more genetic alterations commonly observed in metastatic castration-resistant PCa. No circulating free DNA alterations were found. Limitations include the small cohort size and lack of follow-up.ConclusionsOur study supports the continued use of systematic prostate sampling in addition to mpMRI, as avoidance of systematic biopsies in patients with negative mpMRI may mean that clinically significant tumours harbouring genetic alterations commonly seen in metastatic PCa are missed. Furthermore, there is inconsistency in individual genomics when genomic classifiers are applied.Patient summaryOur study shows that tumour heterogeneity within prostate tumours visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can lead to misclassification of patients if only one core is used for genomic analysis. In addition, some cancers that were missed by mpMRI had genomic aberrations that are commonly seen in advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Avoiding biopsies in mpMRI-negative cases may mean that such potentially lethal cancers are missed.

Project description:ObjectivesReview and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).DesignSystematic review.SettingPubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.ParticipantsCost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.InterventionsDifferent surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.ResultsTwelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.ConclusionsDespite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.Prospero registration numberCRD42021246811.

Project description:IntroductionPatient decision aids (PDAs) have been developed to help patients make an informed choice for a treatment option. Despite proven benefits, structural implementation falls short of expectations. The present study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-utility of the PDA among newly diagnosed patients with localised prostate cancer and their partners, alongside implementation of the PDA in routine care.Methods/analysisA stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted. The PDA will be sequentially implemented in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands, over a period of 24 months. Every 3 or 6 months, a new cluster of hospitals will switch from usual care to care including a PDA.The primary outcome measure is decisional conflict experienced by the patient. Secondary outcomes comprise the patient's quality of life, treatment preferences, role in the decision making, expectations of treatment, knowledge, need for supportive care and decision regret. Furthermore, societal cost-utility will be valued. Other outcome measures considered are the partner's treatment preferences, experienced participation to decision making, quality of life, communication between patient, partner and health care professional, and the effect of prostate cancer on the relationship, social contacts and their role as caregiver. Patients and partners receiving the PDA will also be asked about their satisfaction with the PDA.Baseline assessment takes place after the treatment choice and before the start of a treatment, with follow-up assessments at 3, 6 and 12 months following the end of treatment or the day after deciding on active surveillance. Outcome measures on implementation include the implementation rate (defined as the proportion of all eligible patients who will receive a PDA) and a questionnaire for health care professionals on determinants of implementing an innovation.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be conducted in accordance with local laws and regulations of the Medical Ethics Committee of VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The results from this stepped-wedge trial will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR TC5177, registration date: May 28th 2015.Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionCost-utility assessment of first-line actinic keratosis (AK) treatments for max 25 cm2 AK field.MethodsA probabilistic, 2-year decision tree model was used to assess costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier, cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of AK treatments from the Finnish health care payer perspective with 3% discounting per annum. In the model, the first-line AK treatment resulted in complete clearance (CC) or non-CC with or without local skin responses (LSR), or AK recurrence. Non-CC AK was treated with methyl aminolevulinate+photodynamic therapy (MAL+PDT), and AK recurrence was retreated with the previous effective treatment. Costs included primary and secondary health care, outpatient drugs, and LSR management. QALYs were assessed with the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L). Result robustness was assessed with sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe mean simulated per patient QALYs (costs) were 1.526 (€982) for MAL+PDT, 1.524 (€794) for ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) 0.015% (3 days), 1.522 (€869) for IngMeb 0.05% (2 days), 1.520 (€1062) for diclofenac 3% (12 weeks), 1.518 (€885) for imiquimod 3.75% (6 weeks), 1.517 (€781) for imiquimod 5% (4/8 weeks), and 1.514 (€1114) for cryosurgery when treating AK affecting any body part. IngMeb 0.015% was less costly and more effective (dominating) than other AK treatments indicated for face and scalp area with the exception of imiquimod 5% for which the ICER was estimated at €1933/QALY gained and MAL+PDT, which had an ICER of €82,607/QALY gained against IngMeb 0.015%. With willingness-to-pay €2526-18,809/QALY gained, IngMeb 0.015% had >50% probability for cost-effectiveness on the CEAF. IngMeb 0.05% dominated AK treatments indicated for trunk and extremities. EVPIs for face and scalp (trunk and extremities) analyses were €26 (€0), €86 (€58), and €250 (€169) per patient with the willingness-to-pay of €0, €15,000, and €30,000 per QALY gained, respectively.ConclusionIngMebs were cost-effective AK treatments in Finland.FundingLEO Pharma.

Dataset Information

Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.

Unlabelled

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets