Literature DB >> 16109464

Economic analysis of a phase III clinical trial evaluating the addition of total androgen suppression to radiation versus radiation alone for locally advanced prostate cancer (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 86-10).

Andre Konski1, Eric Sherman, Murray Krahn, Karen Bremner, J Robert Beck, Deborah Watkins-Bruner, Michael Pilepich.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding hormone therapy to radiation for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, using a Monte Carlo simulation of a Markov Model. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 86-10 randomized patients to receive radiation therapy (RT) alone or RT plus total androgen suppression (RTHormones) 2 months before and during RT for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. A Markov model was designed with Data Pro (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA). The analysis took a payer's perspective. Transition probabilities from one state of health (i.e., with no disease progression or with hormone-responsive metastatic disease) to another were calculated from published rates pertaining to RTOG 86-10. Patients remained in one state of health for 1 year. Utility values for each health state and treatment were obtained from the literature. Distributions were sampled at random from the treatment utilities according to a second-order Monte Carlo simulation technique.
RESULTS: The mean expected cost for the RT-only treatments was 29,240 dollars (range, 29,138-29,403 dollars). The mean effectiveness for the RT-only treatment was 5.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (range, 5.47-5.50). The mean expected cost for RTHormones was 31,286 dollars (range, 31,058-31,555 dollars). The mean effectiveness was 6.43 QALYs (range, 6.42-6.44). Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed RTHormones to be within the range of cost-effectiveness at 2,153 dollars/QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis resulted in a >80% probability that RTHormones is cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that adding hormonal treatment to RT improves health outcomes at a cost that is within the acceptable cost-effectiveness range.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16109464     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  16 in total

1.  External-beam radiation therapy should be given with androgen deprivation treatment for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: new confirmatory evidence.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-10-31       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Feasibility of using administrative claims data for cost-effectiveness analysis of a clinical trial.

Authors:  Andre Konski; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Jean Owen; Rebecca Paulus; Jay Cooper; Karen K Fu; Kian Ang; Deborah Watkins-Bruner
Journal:  J Med Econ       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.448

3.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resected gastric cancer.

Authors:  Samuel J Wang; Clifton D Fuller; Mehee Choi; Charles R Thomas
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2008-03

Review 4.  Radiation costing methods: a systematic review.

Authors:  F Rahman; S J Seung; S Y Cheng; H Saherawala; C C Earle; N Mittmann
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  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 6.  Patient-reported outcomes and survivorship in radiation oncology: overcoming the cons.

Authors:  Farzan Siddiqui; Arthur K Liu; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Benjamin Movsas
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Pharmacoeconomics of available treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer.

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

8.  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

9.  Cost effectiveness of risk-prediction tools in selecting patients for immediate post-prostatectomy treatment.

Authors:  Valentina Bayer Zubek; Andre Konski
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 10.  Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  S Kumar; M Shelley; C Harrison; B Coles; T J Wilt; M D Mason
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.