Literature DB >> 16006889

The cost-effectiveness of combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide and luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist in men with metastatic prostate cancer.

David F Penson1, Scott Ramsey, David Veenstra, Lauren Clarke, Sanjay Gandhi, Mark Hirsch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Combined androgen blockade therapy (CAB) has been shown to have a small survival advantage over luteinizing hormone releasing hormone LH-RH agonists (LH-RHa) alone in men with metastatic prostate cancer. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAB with bicalutamide and LH-RH agonist therapy to LH-RH agonist therapy alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A macro-simulation model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 interventions for stage D2 prostate cancer, 1) CAB with bicalutamide 50 mg per day and monthly dosing of an LH-RHa or 2) monthly LH-RH agonist therapy. Cost and outcomes are tabulated in 5 and 10-year time horizons. Model assumptions were taken from the published literature. Appropriate 1-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: At 5 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAB, when compared with LH-RHa monotherapy, was US dollars 33,677 per quality-adjusted life-year. In other words, for every additional quality-adjusted life year that a patient lived because he received CAB, it cost US dollars 33,677. At 10 years the ICER for CAB was US dollars 20,053 (well within the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold). If quality adjustment was not included, the ICER for CAB was even more favorable (US dollars 20,489 at 5 years and US dollars 13,313 at 10 years). The model was most sensitive to the estimates of effectiveness (survival) of LH-RHa therapy alone and CAB therapy. The model was also fairly sensitive to the quality of life effect of having late stage prostate cancer and the cost of bicalutamide.
CONCLUSIONS: CAB with bicalutamide is cost-effective when compared with LH-RH monotherapy in men with stage D2 prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16006889     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000165569.48372.4c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  11 in total

1.  Is fidaxomicin worth the cost? An economic analysis.

Authors:  Sarah M Bartsch; Craig A Umscheid; Neil Fishman; Bruce Y Lee
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Prostate cancer mortality and metastasis under different biopsy frequencies in North American active surveillance cohorts.

Authors:  Jane M Lange; Aaron A Laviana; David F Penson; Daniel W Lin; Anna Bill-Axelson; Sigrid V Carlsson; Lisa F Newcomb; Bruce J Trock; H Ballentine Carter; Peter R Carroll; Mathew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Laurence H Klotz; Ruth B Etzioni
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Pharmacoeconomics of available treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  Steven B Zeliadt; David F Penson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Elisabeth M Wever; Anssi Auvinen; Jonas Hugosson; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Arnauld Villers; Alvaro Páez; Sue M Moss; Marco Zappa; Teuvo L J Tammela; Tuukka Mäkinen; Sigrid Carlsson; Ida J Korfage; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Suzie J Otto; Gerrit Draisma; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  The potential economic value of screening hospital admissions for Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  S M Bartsch; S R Curry; L H Harrison; B Y Lee
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2012-06-30       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 6.  Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for prostate cancer chemoprevention : a review and summary of challenges.

Authors:  Stephanie R Earnshaw; Andrew P Brogan; Cheryl L McDade
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Clarifying the Trade-Offs of Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

Authors:  Nathaniel Hendrix; Roman Gulati; Boshen Jiao; A Karim Kader; Stephen T Ryan; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis.

Authors:  Edna Keeney; Howard Thom; Emma Turner; Richard M Martin; Josie Morley; Sabina Sanghera
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-09-22       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Economic Evaluation of Urine-Based or Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reflex Tests in Men With Intermediate Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels in the United States.

Authors:  Boshen Jiao; Roman Gulati; Nathaniel Hendrix; John L Gore; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Todd M Morgan; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 5.101

10.  An Economic Analysis of Strategies to Control Clostridium Difficile Transmission and Infection Using an Agent-Based Simulation Model.

Authors:  Richard E Nelson; Makoto Jones; Molly Leecaster; Matthew H Samore; William Ray; Angela Huttner; Benedikt Huttner; Karim Khader; Vanessa W Stevens; Dale Gerding; Marin L Schweizer; Michael A Rubin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.