Dataset Information

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, approved first-line treatment options of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) include (1) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus one of the following: (2) docetaxel, (3) abiraterone, (4) enzalutamide, and (5) apalutamide. The high cost of novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors warrants an understanding of the combinations' value by considering both efficacy and cost.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of these five treatment options in mHSPC from the US payer perspective to guide treatment sequence.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of these five first-line treatment options for mHSPC using outcomes data from published literature. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Pharmaceutical Catalog. We extrapolated survival beyond closure of the trials.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Life-years, QALYs, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter uncertainty. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 per QALY was used.

Results

Compared to ADT alone, docetaxel plus ADT provided a 0.28 QALY gain at an ICER of US$12,870 per QALY. Abiraterone plus ADT provided an additional 1.70 QALYs against docetaxel plus ADT, with an ICER of US$38,897 per QALY. Compared to abiraterone plus ADT, enzalutamide plus ADT provided an additional 0.87 QALYs at an ICER of US$509,813 per QALY. Apalutamide plus ADT was strongly dominated by enzalutamide plus ADT. Given the WTP threshold of US$100,000 per QALY, abiraterone plus ADT represented high-value health care.

Conclusions

Abiraterone plus ADT is the preferred treatment option for men with mHSPC at a WTP threshold of US$100,000 per QALY.

SUBMITTER: Sung WWY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7943717 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Sung Winnie W Y WWY Choi Horace C W HCW Luk Peter H Y PHY So Tsz Him TH

Frontiers in oncology 20210224

<h4>Background</h4>Currently, approved first-line treatment options of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) include (1) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus one of the following: (2) docetaxel, (3) abiraterone, (4) enzalutamide, and (5) apalutamide. The high cost of novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors warrants an understanding of the combinations' value by considering both efficacy and cost.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness ...[more]

PMID: 33718198

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available docetaxel-based systemic triplet therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Methods: We searched for eligible publications in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Improvements in overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free time (rPFS) were compared indirectly using network meta-analysis and evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Other secondary endpoints, such as time to castration-resistant prostate cancer and/or adverse events (AEs), were also compared and evaluated. Results: Five trials were selected and analyzed using a network meta-analysis. Compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel, darolutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.57–0.80) and abiraterone (HR: 0.75, 95% CrI: 0.59–0.95) triplet therapy had significantly longer OS, and darolutamide triplet therapy was the first treatment ranked. Abiraterone (HR: 0.49, 95% CrI: 0.39–0.61) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.52, 95% CrI: 0.30–0.89) had significantly better rPFS than ADT plus docetaxel; however, all three therapies, including abiraterone, apalutamide, and enzalutamide, were the best options with a similar SUCRA. At most secondary endpoints, systemic triplet therapy was superior to ADT plus docetaxel. The risk of any AEs in darolutamide or abiraterone triplet therapy was comparable with ADT plus docetaxel (odds ratio [OR]: 2.53, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.68–12.63; OR: 1.07, 95% CrI: 0.03–36.25). Abiraterone triplet therapy had an increased risk of grade≥3 AEs (OR: 1.56, 95% CrI: 1.15–2.11). Conclusion: Systemic triplet therapy was more effective than ADT plus docetaxel for mHSPC. Of the triplet therapy regimens, darolutamide ranked first in terms of improved OS. Abiraterone and enzalutamide triplet ranked first in terms of rFPS, however, it did not confer a statistically difference among all triplet regimens. The overall risk of AEs was comparable. More studies are required for current and potential combinations of systemic triplet therapy.

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:Background: Recent randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of different combinations of systemic and local treatment approaches for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We compared the efficacy of these combined regimens in order to identify the optimal therapy for specific patient subgroups. Methods: The treatments were abiraterone (ABI), apalutamide (APA), docetaxel (DOC), enzalutamide (ENZ), and radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Five electronic databases were searched up to May 7, 2020 for relevant trials. The risk of bias in the included trials was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined for the included trials and indirect comparisons were performed using the R software. Results: In total, 10 randomized, controlled trials with 11,194 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ADT + RT was superior to ADT monotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85-1.1) and conferred a survival benefit in a subgroup of low-volume patients (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.87). Combined systemic treatments were significantly superior to ADT monotherapy in comparisons of survival and prostate-specific antigen response, including in the high-volume subgroup; meanwhile, in the low-volume subgroup only ADT + ENZ (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.69) showed a significant clinical benefit. In the Gleason score <8 subgroup, all combined systemic treatments were superior to ADT monotherapy, but the results were only significant for ADT + APA (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.95) and ADT + DOC (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92). In the Gleason score ≥8 subgroup, ADT monotherapy was inferior (albeit not significantly) to combined treatments. In a ranking of performed comparisons, ADT + ENZ was the optimal regimen, although this was non-significant. Combined therapies also demonstrated superiority in quality-of-life indicators such as time to skeletal events and pain progression. Conclusion: ADT + radiotherapy led to superior outcomes in mHSPC patients with low-volume disease. While all combined systemic regimens confer a survival advantage over ADT monotherapy, the optimal treatment approach for certain mHSPC patient subgroups remains to be determined.

Dataset Information

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Background

Objective

Methods

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets