Dataset Information

Modelling the lifetime cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active monitoring for men with clinically localised prostate cancer from median 10-year outcomes in the ProtecT randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: 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).

SUBMITTER: Sanghera S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7542698 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Modelling the lifetime cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active monitoring for men with clinically localised prostate cancer from median 10-year outcomes in the ProtecT randomised trial.

Sanghera S S Mohiuddin S S Coast J J Garfield K K Noble S S Metcalfe C C Lane J A JA Turner E L EL Neal D D Hamdy F C FC Martin R M RM Donovan J L JL

BMC cancer 20201007 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>A decision-analytic (Markov) model was developed and informed by clinical input. The economic evaluation adopted a U ...[more]

PMID: 33028256

Similar Datasets

Project description:UnlabelledWHAT'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.ObjectiveTo 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 methodsA 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.ResultsDifferences 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

Project description:IntroductionSalvage radiotherapy is the only curative treatment for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. Macroscopic recurrence may be found in the prostatic bed. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness of salvage radiotherapy of the prostate bed with a boost to the area of the macroscopic recurrence.Material and methodsFrom January 2005 to January 2020, 89 patients with macroscopic recurrence in the prostatectomy bed were treated with salvage radiotherapy +/- hormone therapy. The average PSA level prior to radiotherapy was 1.1 ng/mL (SD: 1.6). At the time of biochemical progression, 96% of the patients had a MRI that revealed the macroscopic recurrence, and 58% had an additional choline PET scan. 67.4% of the patients got a boost to the macroscopic nodule, while 32.5% of the patients only underwent radiotherapy of the prostate bed without a boost. The median total dose of radiotherapy was 70 Gy (Min.: 60 - Max.: 74). The most commonly-used regimen was radiotherapy of the prostatectomy bed with a concomitant boost. 48% of the patients were concomitantly treated with hormone therapy.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 53.7 months, 77 patients were alive and 12 had died, of which 4 following metastatic progression. The 5-year and 8-year survival rates (CI95%) are, respectively, 90.2% (78.9-95.6%) and 69.8% (46.4-84.4%). The 5-year biochemical progression-free survival rate (CI95%) is 50.8% (36.7-63.3). Metastatic recurrence occurred in 11.2% of the patients. We did not find any statistically significant impact from the various known prognostic factors for biochemical progression-free survival. No toxicity with a grade of > or = to 3 was found.ConclusionsOur series is one of the largest published to date. Salvage radiotherapy has its place in the management of patients with biochemical progression with local recurrence in the prostate bed, with an acceptable toxicity profile. The interest of the boost is to be evaluated in prospective trials.

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:ImportanceStratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is essential for determining the need for further testing and treatments.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of BCR after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and its current risk stratification with PCSM.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study included a total of 16 311 male patients with 10 364 (64%) undergoing radical prostatectomy and 5947 (36%) undergoing radiotherapy with curative intent (cT1-3, cM0) and PSA follow-up in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2019. Follow-up for all patients was until death, emigration, or end of the study (ie, December 31, 2018). Data were analyzed between September 2022 and March 2023.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes of the study were the cumulative incidence of BCR and PCSM. Patients with BCR were stratified in low- and high-risk according to European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria.ExposuresRadical prostatectomy or radiotherapy.ResultsA total of 16 311 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 64 (59-68) years in the radical prostatectomy cohort (10 364 patients) and 69 (64-73) years in the radiotherapy cohort (5947 patients). Median (IQR) follow-up for survivors was 88 (55-138) months and 89 (53-134) months, respectively. Following radical prostatectomy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 16% (95% CI, 15%-18%) for the 4024 patients in the low D'Amico risk group, 30% (95% CI, 27%-32%) for the 5239 patients in the intermediate D'Amico risk group, and 46% (95% CI, 42%-51%) for 1101 patients in the high D'Amico risk group. Following radiotherapy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%) for the 1230 patients in the low-risk group, 24% (95% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patients in the intermediate-risk group, and 36% (95% CI, 33%-39%) for the 2362 patients in the high-risk group. The 10-year cumulative incidences of PCSM after radical prostatectomy were 4% (95% CI, 2%-6%) for the 1101 patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR and 9% (95% CI, 5%-13%) for 649 patients who developed high-risk EAU-BCR. After radiotherapy, the 10-year PCSM cumulative incidences were 24% (95% CI, 19%-29%) for the 591 patients in the low-risk EAU-BCR category and 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%) for the 600 patients in the high-risk EAU-BCR category.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest the validity of EAU-BCR stratification system. However, while the risk of dying from prostate cancer in low-risk EAU-BCR after radical prostatectomy was very low, patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR after radiotherapy had a nonnegligible risk of prostate cancer mortality. Improving risk stratification of patients with BCR is pivotal to guide salvage treatment decisions, reduce overtreatment, and limit the number of staging tests in the event of PSA elevations after primary treatment.

Project description:Importance:The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective:To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures:Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results:Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

Dataset Information

Modelling the lifetime cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active monitoring for men with clinically localised prostate cancer from median 10-year outcomes in the ProtecT randomised trial.

Publications

Modelling the lifetime cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active monitoring for men with clinically localised prostate cancer from median 10-year outcomes in the ProtecT randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets