Niranjan J Sathianathen1, Fernando Alarid-Escudero2, Karen M Kuntz3, Nathan Lawrentschuk4, Damien M Bolton5, Declan G Murphy6, Simon P Kim7, Badrinath R Konety8. 1. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: nsathian@umn.edu. 2. Drug Policy Program, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics, CONACyT, Aguascalientes, Mexico. 3. Division of Health Policy & Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Urology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 8. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following the recent publication of results from randomized trials that have demonstrated a survival benefit for the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone acetate to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, it is important to assess whether the benefits of treatment with these agents outweigh their costs. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate docetaxel or abiraterone acetate treatment in addition to ADT in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed a state-transition model to simulate the natural progression of metastatic PC. Model parameters were derived from the published literature and through calibration to observed epidemiological data. Following diagnosis, a hypothetical cohort of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC could be treated with docetaxel+ADT, abiraterone+ADT, or ADT alone. Once disease progresses to castration-resistant PC, treatment with one of the approved therapies in this setting was initiated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from a US private payer, health sector perspective. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Compared to treatment with ADT alone, docetaxel and abiraterone resulted in a discounted quality-adjusted survival gain of 3.6 and 22.0mo, respectively. Using standard cost-effectiveness metrics, treatment with docetaxel and ADT provides high value for money (ie, is cost effective) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $34723, compared to an ICER of $295212 for abiraterone. The monthly cost of abiraterone would have to be less than $3114 for it to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel+ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment option for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC. Although potentially more effective than docetaxel, the costs of abiraterone would have to be considerably lower to match the cost effectiveness of docetaxel+ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study evaluated the balance of costs and benefits for treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), abiraterone plus ADT, or ADT alone. We found that treatment with docetaxel plus ADT likely represents the most cost-effective option in this setting.
BACKGROUND: Following the recent publication of results from randomized trials that have demonstrated a survival benefit for the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone acetate to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, it is important to assess whether the benefits of treatment with these agents outweigh their costs. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate docetaxel or abiraterone acetate treatment in addition to ADT in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed a state-transition model to simulate the natural progression of metastatic PC. Model parameters were derived from the published literature and through calibration to observed epidemiological data. Following diagnosis, a hypothetical cohort of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC could be treated with docetaxel+ADT, abiraterone+ADT, or ADT alone. Once disease progresses to castration-resistant PC, treatment with one of the approved therapies in this setting was initiated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from a US private payer, health sector perspective. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Compared to treatment with ADT alone, docetaxel and abiraterone resulted in a discounted quality-adjusted survival gain of 3.6 and 22.0mo, respectively. Using standard cost-effectiveness metrics, treatment with docetaxel and ADT provides high value for money (ie, is cost effective) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $34723, compared to an ICER of $295212 for abiraterone. The monthly cost of abiraterone would have to be less than $3114 for it to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS:Docetaxel+ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment option for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC. Although potentially more effective than docetaxel, the costs of abiraterone would have to be considerably lower to match the cost effectiveness of docetaxel+ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study evaluated the balance of costs and benefits for treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), abiraterone plus ADT, or ADT alone. We found that treatment with docetaxel plus ADT likely represents the most cost-effective option in this setting.
Authors: E M Kwan; I A Thangasamy; J Teh; O Alghazo; N J Sathianathen; N Lawrentschuk; A A Azad Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Fernando Cotait Maluf; Felipe Moraes Toledo Pereira; Pedro Luiz Serrano Uson; Diogo Assed Bastos; Diogo Augusto Rodrigues da Rosa; Evanius Garcia Wiermann; Fábio A Schutz; Fábio Roberto Kater; Fernando Nunes Galvão de Oliveira; Fernando Sabino Marques Monteiro; Fernando Vidigal de Pádua; Francisco Javier Orlandi; Helena Paes de Almeida Saito; Mouna Ayadi; Pamela Salman Boghikian; Ray Manneh Kopp; Ricardo Saraiva de Carvalho; Rodrigo Nogueira de Fogace; Sandro Roberto de Araújo Cavallero; Sergio Aguiar; Vinicius Carreira Souza; Silke Gillessen Sommer Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2021-04
Authors: Niranjan J Sathianathen; Makinna C Oestreich; Sarah Jane Brown; Shilpa Gupta; Badrinath R Konety; Philipp Dahm; Frank Kunath Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-12-12
Authors: Mary E Hall; Heather L Huelster; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Aaron A Laviana; Kirk A Keegan; Zachary Klaassen; Kelvin A Moses; Christopher J D Wallis Journal: Onco Targets Ther Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Carlo Cattrini; Elena Castro; Rebeca Lozano; Elisa Zanardi; Alessandra Rubagotti; Francesco Boccardo; David Olmos Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 6.639