Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone versus docetaxel in the treatment of metastatic hormone naive prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the US. Since 2015, landmark studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with the use of docetaxel (DCT) or abiraterone (AA) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the metastatic hormone-naïve setting. These treatment strategies have not been prospectively compared but have similar overall survival benefits despite differing mechanisms of action, toxicity, and cost. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to provide insight into the value of AA vs. DCT in the first-line treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and a 3-year time horizon to estimate costs (2018 US$) and progression-free quality-adjusted life years (PF-QALYs) for ADT alone, DCT, and AA. Health states were defined as initial state, treatment states according to experience of an adverse event, and progressed disease/death. State transition probabilities were derived from rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death from the randomized phase III trials ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) and LATITUDE. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results

DCT resulted in an increase of 0.32 PF-QALYs and $16,100 in cost and AA resulted in an increase of 0.52 PF-QALYs and $215,800 in cost compared to ADT alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DCT vs. ADT was $50,500/PF-QALY and for AA vs. DCT was $1,010,000/PF-QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/PF-QALY AA was highly unlikely to be cost-effective.

Conclusion

DCT is substantially more cost-effective than AA in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Ramamurthy C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7751618 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone versus docetaxel in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

Ramamurthy Chethan C Handorf Elizabeth A EA Correa Andres F AF Beck J Robert JR Geynisman Daniel M DM

Urologic oncology 20190806 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the US. Since 2015, landmark studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with the use of docetaxel (DCT) or abiraterone (AA) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the metastatic hormone-naïve setting. These treatment strategies have not been prospectively compared but have similar overall survival benefits despite differing mechanisms of action, toxicity, and cost. We performed a cost-ef ...[more]

PMID: 31399302

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAddition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been proved to be effective with an overall survival (OS) benefit in phase III clinical trials. The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in the general patient population remains unknown.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to report the clinical experience in mHSPC patients treated with 3rd-weekly docetaxel plus ADT in routine practice at two Danish institutions.Design setting and participantsA two-center retrospective study including consecutive mHSPC patients treated with 3rd-weekly docetaxel plus ADT was conducted.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisOutcomes of interest were OS, and biochemical and clinical progression-free survival.Results and limitationsA total of 173 consecutive patients with mHSPC who received docetaxel every 3rd week plus ADT between June 2015 and February 2018 were included. Most patients had high-volume disease (85%). All six planned docetaxel cycles were delivered in 149 cases (86%). Of the patients, 106 (61%) were alive at the last follow-up. At a median follow-up of 42 (37.8-58.6) mo, the median OS was 51.6 (41.5-56.3) mo. Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) developed in 46% within 1 yr, with a median time to CRPC of 15.6 (13.0-18.1) mo. Prostate-specific antigen nadir ≤0.2 ng/l was achieved in 15% of patients after 6 mo of ADT and in 19% after 12 mo.ConclusionsThe effect of docetaxel for mHSPC patients treated in routine practice appears comparable with the overall efficacy reported in the literature. Selection of patients will influence the results in clinical practice and clinical studies.Patient summaryIn this report, we looked at the clinical effectiveness of docetaxel combined with androgen deprivation therapy in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in a Danish population. We found the effect of docetaxel treatment for mHSPC in the general population to be comparable with the overall efficacy reported in published studies.

Project description:Two randomized clinical trials have demonstrated a survival advantage with enzalutamide over placebo in both docetaxel (D)-pretreated and D-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Cross-resistance between androgen receptor-directed therapies and taxanes has been suggested, possibly leading to lower efficacy of enzalutamide in the post-D setting.We aimed to examine the impact of prior D treatment on the clinical activity of enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC. We retrospectively reviewed an institutional database to identify men with mCRPC treated with standard-of-care enzalutamide. Patients were classified as D-naïve or D-pretreated. The efficacy end points were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates (??50% PSA decline), time to PSA progression (TTPP) and clinical/radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) in response to enzalutamide. Differences between groups (D-naïve and D-pretreated) were assessed by univariate and multivariable analyses using logistic and Cox regression models.One-hundred-seven (107) consecutive patients were included: 60 were D-pretreated and 47 were D-naïve. PSA responses were 43.2% in D-naïve patients and 25.4% in D-pretreated patients (P?=?0.089). Median TTPP was 7.2 months (95% CI?=?4.5?-?17.2) in the D-naïve group versus 2.6 mo (95% CI?=?1.9?-?3.5) in the D-pretreated group (P?<?0.0001). Median PFS was not reached for D-naïve men and was 3.3 mo (95% CI?=?2.5?-?4.8) for D-pretreated men (P?<?0.0001). After adjusting for potential confounders including prior abiraterone use, differences remained statistically significant for TTPP (HR?=?2.32; 95% CI?=?1.19?-?4.50; P?=?0.013) and marginally significant for PFS (HR?=?1.90; 95% CI?=?0.94?-?3.84; P?=?0.073) in multivariable analyses. Among patients who achieved a PSA response to enzalutamide (n?=?34), results suggested a trend towards shorter duration of response in D-pretreated patients.The clinical activity of enzalutamide appears to be blunted in patients who have previously received docetaxel chemotherapy. These results support the concept of cross-resistance between these two agents.

Project description:Androgen deprivation therapy remains the single most effective treatment for the initial therapy of advanced prostate cancer, but is uniformly marked by progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Residual tumor androgens and androgen axis activation are now recognized to play a prominent role in mediating CRPC progression. Despite suppression of circulating testosterone to castrate levels, castration does not eliminate androgens from the prostate tumor microenvironment and residual androgen levels are well within the range capable of activating the androgen receptor (AR) and AR-mediated gene expression. Accordingly, therapeutic strategies that more effectively target production of intratumoral androgens are necessary. The introduction of abiraterone, a potent suppressor of cytochrome P450 17 ?-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-mediated androgen production, has heralded a new era in the hormonal treatment of men with metastatic CRPC. Herein, the androgen and AR-mediated mechanisms that contribute to CRPC progression and establish cytochrome P450 17 ?-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase as a critical therapeutic target are briefly reviewed. The mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics of abiraterone are reviewed and its recently described activity against AR and 3-?-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase is discussed. The Phase I and II data initially demonstrating the efficacy of abiraterone and Phase III data supporting its approval for patients with metastatic CRPC are reviewed. The safety and tolerability of abiraterone, including the incidence and management of side effects and potential drug interactions, are discussed. The current place of abiraterone in CRPC therapy is reviewed and early evidence regarding cross-resistance of abiraterone with taxane therapy, mechanisms of resistance to abiraterone, and observations of an abiraterone withdrawal response are presented. Future directions in the use of abiraterone, including optimal dosing strategies, the role of abiraterone in earlier disease settings, including castration sensitive, biochemically recurrent, or localized disease, and the rationale for combinatorial treatment strategies of abiraterone with enzalutamide and other targeted agents are also discussed.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in Japan.MethodsA Markov model was developed to capture time spent by patients in various health states: stable, progression and death. Abiraterone acetate and docetaxel were set as active comparators. Clinical outcomes were obtained from the PREVAIL, COU-AA-302 and TAX327 trials. Treatment sequence, concomitant drugs and therapies for adverse events were estimated from responses to a survey by 14 Japanese prostate cancer experts. The analytic perspective was public healthcare payer, with a 10-year time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated from quality-adjusted life-years and Japanese public healthcare costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the findings.ResultsAccording to the survey, the most common treatment sequences were (i) enzalutamide → docetaxel → cabazitaxel (enzalutamide-first sequencing), (ii) abiraterone → enzalutamide → docetaxel (abiraterone-first sequencing) and (iii) docetaxel→ enzalutamide → cabazitaxel (docetaxel-first sequencing). In the base-case analysis, enzalutamide-first sequencing saved 1.74 million Japanese Yen versus abiraterone-first sequencing, with a 0.129 quality-adjusted life-year gain (dominant). Enzalutamide-first sequencing had a cost increase of 4.44 million Japanese Yen over docetaxel-first sequencing, with a 0.371 quality-adjusted life-years gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enzalutamide-first sequencing versus docetaxel-first sequencing was estimated as 11.94 million Japanese Yen/quality-adjusted life-years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that, compared with abiraterone-first sequencing, enzalutamide-first sequencing had an 87.4% probability of being dominant.ConclusionsResults modeled herein suggest that the enzalutamide-first sequencing is more cost-effective than the abiraterone-first sequencing, but less cost-effective than docetaxel-first sequencing for chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.