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:BACKGROUND:Optimal 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:Costs 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. CONCLUSION:Over 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 REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

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:INTRODUCTION:Patient 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/ANALYSIS:A 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 DISSEMINATION:This 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 REGISTRATION:Nederlands 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.

Project description:OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare in a multireader manner the diagnostic accuracies of 3-T multiparametric MRI interpretation and serial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement in predicting the presence of residual clinically significant prostate cancer after focal laser ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Eighteen men had undergone focal laser ablation for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer as part of two National Cancer Institute-funded phase 1 clinical trials. Multiparametric MRI was performed immediately after and 6 and 12 months after focal laser ablation. Serial PSA measurements after focal laser ablation were recorded, and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy was performed 6 and 12 months after ablation and served as the reference standard. Multiparametric MRI was performed at 3 T with pelvic phased-array coils. T2-weighted, DW, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images were retrospectively assessed by two blinded radiologists using a 3-point Likert scale (0-2). Inter-reader agreement was assessed with the Cohen kappa statistic. The diagnostic accuracies of multiparametric MRI and PSA measurement were compared. RESULTS. Residual clinically significant prostate cancer was identified in 11 of 18 (61%) men. Logistic regression analysis of serial PSA measurements yielded a correct classification rate of 61.1% (p > 0.05). Using a multiparametric MRI threshold score of 4 or greater, both radiologists made correct classifications for 16 of 18 men (89%) at 6 months and 15 of 17 men (88%) at 12 months. Interreader agreement was substantial to excellent for T2-weighted imaging, DWI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and improved uniformly from 6 to 12 months. Logistic regression analysis of the retrospectively reviewed multiparametric MR images yielded AUCs greater than 0.90 for each radiologist 6 and 12 months after focal laser ablation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. Multiparametric MRI 6 and 12 months after focal laser ablation significantly outperformed serial PSA measurements for predicting the presence of residual clinically significant prostate cancer.

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