Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Innovative Therapy for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Hormone-Sensitive Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Impact of performance status on efficacy of systemic therapy for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapies in patients with worse performance status (PS) treated for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (mHSPC), and non-metastatic/metastatic castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC/mCRPC), as there is sparse pooled data showing the effect of PS on oncological outcomes in patients with PCa.

METHODS

Three databases were queried in June 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing patients with PCa treated with systemic therapy (i.e., adding androgen receptor signalling inhibitor [ARSI] or docetaxel [DOC] to androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT]). We analysed the oncological outcomes of patients with PCa with worse PS, defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS ≥ 1, treated with combination therapies and compared these to patients with good PS. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and progression-free survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 25 and 18 RCTs were included for systematic review and meta-analyses/network meta-analyses, respectively. In all clinical settings, combination systemic therapies significantly improved OS in patients with worse PS as well as in those with good PS, while the MFS benefit from ARSI in the nmCRPC setting was more pronounced in patients with good PS than in those with worse PS (P = 0.002). Analysis of treatment ranking in patients with mHSPC revealed that triplet therapy had the highest likelihood of improved OS irrespective of PS; specifically, adding darolutamide to DOC + ADT had the highest likelihood of improved OS in patients with worse PS. Analyses were limited by the small proportion of patients with a PS ≥ 1 (19%-28%) and that the number of PS 2 was rarely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Among RCTs, novel systemic therapies seem to benefit the OS of patients with PCa irrespective of PS. Our findings suggest that worse PS should not discourage treatment intensification across all disease stages.

Docetaxel versus abiraterone for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with focus on efficacy of sequential therapy

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the oncologic efficacy of combining docetaxel (DOC) versus abiraterone (ABI) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with high-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), with a focus on the efficacy of sequential therapy, in a real-world clinical practice setting.

METHODS

The records of 336 patients who harbored de novo high-risk mHSPC, based on the LATITUDE criteria, and had received ADT with either DOC (n = 109) or ABI (n = 227) were retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), including time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), time to 2nd-line progression (PFS2), and 2nd- and 3rd-line PFS, were compared. We used one-to-two propensity score matching to minimize the confounders. The differential efficacy of 2nd-line therapy based on agents in each arm was evaluated using the unmatched cohort as an additional interest.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 86 patients treated with DOC + ADT and 172 with ABI + ADT were available for analyses. The 3-year OS and CSS for DOC versus ABI were 76.2% versus 75.1% (p = 0.8) and 78.2% versus 78.6% (p = 1), respectively. There was no difference in the median PFS2 (49 vs. 43 months, p = 0.39), while the median time to CRPC in patients treated with ABI was significantly longer compared to those treated with DOC (42 vs. 22 months; p = 0.006). The median 2nd-line PFS (14 vs. 4 months, p < 0.001) and 3rd-line PFS (4 vs. 2 months, p = 0.012) were significantly better in the DOC group than in the ABI group. Among the unmatched cohort, after ABI for mHSPC, the median 2nd-line PFS did not differ between the patients treated with DOC and those treated with enzalutamide as 2nd-line therapy (both 3 months, p = 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT with DOC or ABI has comparable oncologic outcomes in terms of OS, CSS, and PFS2 in patients with de novo high-risk mHSPC. Compared to DOC, ABI resulted in longer time to CRPC but worse 2nd and 3rd-line PFS. Further studies are needed to clarify the optimal sequence of therapy in the upfront intensive treatment era.

Comparison of efficacy and medical costs between upfront docetaxel and abiraterone treatments of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients in real-world practice: a multicenter retrospective study

PURPOSE

We compared the real-world efficacy and medical costs for treatment with upfront docetaxel (DOC) and abiraterone acetate (ABI) up to progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 340 patients with mHSPC treated with either upfront DOC or upfront ABI between October 2015 and December 2021. We compared PFS2 and medical costs between the two treatment groups. PFS2 was defined as the time from first-line therapy to progression on second-line therapy. Medical costs were estimated using the National Health Insurance drug prices in 2022 in Japan.

RESULTS

The upfront DOC and ABI groups included 107 and 233 patients, respectively. The incidence of metastatic castration-resistant PC progression was significantly higher in the upfront DOC group compared with the incidence in the upfront ABI group. However, no significant differences in PFS2 were observed between the two treatment groups. Monthly medical costs per patient were significantly higher in the upfront ABI group ($3453) compared with the costs in the upfront DOC group ($1239, P < 0.001). The cost differences were significantly influenced by differences in the length of androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy (DOC group, 13.4 months vs. ABI group, 0.0 months).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a significant cost benefit in the upfront DOC group in Japanese real-world practice, while the PFS2 rates were similar between the groups. Upfront DOC was a more cost-effective option for men with mHSPC who were eligible for toxic chemotherapy.

Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

The management of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been significantly modified by the availability of innovative but expensive treatments, increasing the economic burden of prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and review published economic evaluations (EEs) related to the treatment of mHSPC and assess their quality. A systematic search was performed of the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Three reviewers independently selected EEs by defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. They extracted all data from each EE (general information, study population, data about the EE, interventions and comparators, and outcomes). They also assessed the quality of the selected EEs according to Drummond's checklist. Fourteen EEs published between 2016 and 2021 were eligible for the systematic review. The EEs found ADT + docetaxel to be the most cost-effective of all available treatments as a first-line strategy for mHSPC (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide). Five EEs showed that a simple price reduction of abiraterone acetate of 50% to 75% could change the results to render this treatment also cost-effective relative to that with docetaxel. Twelve EEs were of high quality, with a Drummond score ≥ 7. Analysis of the 14 EEs identified by our systematic review, amongst which 78.6% met high quality standards, showed that ADT + docetaxel tends to be the most cost-effective alternative for mHSPC. These results were assessed by sensitivity analysis. The data provided by this systematic review help to provide a better understanding of these treatments and the better use of healthcare resources.

Survival modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

In metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment, survival benefits have been shown by adding docetaxel or recent androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs) abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the optimal treatment strategy in terms of costs and effects is unclear, not least due to high ARAT costs.

METHODS

To assess treatment cost-effectiveness, we developed a Markov cohort model with health states of progression-free disease, progressive disease and death for men with newly diagnosed mHSPC, with a 30-year time horizon. Survival data, adverse events and utilities were informed by randomized controlled trial results, our meta-analysis of re-created individual patient survival data, and publicly available sources of unit costs. We applied a Swiss healthcare payer perspective and discounted costs and effects by 3%.

RESULTS

We found a significant overall survival benefit for ADT+abiraterone versus ADT+docetaxel. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was predicted to be EUR 39,814 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide incurred higher costs and lower QALYs compared to ADT+abiraterone. For all ARATs, drug costs constituted the most substantial cost component. Results were stable except for a large univariable reduction in the pre-progression utility under ADT+abiraterone and very large variations in drug prices.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model projected ADT+abiraterone to be cost-effective compared to ADT+docetaxel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 70,400/QALY (CHF 100,000 applying purchasing power parities). Given lower estimated QALYs for ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide compared to ADT+abiraterone, the former only became cost-effective (the preferred) treatment option(s) at substantial 75-80% (80-90%) price reductions.

Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors in Addition to Docetaxel with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the role of adding androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), including abiraterone acetate (ABI), apalutamide, darolutamide (DAR), and enzalutamide (ENZ), to docetaxel (DOC) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the oncologic benefit of triplet combination therapies using ARSI + DOC + ADT, and comparing them with available treatment regimens in patients with mHSPC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three databases and meetings abstracts were queried in April 2022 for RCTs analyzing patients treated with first-line combination systemic therapy for mHSPC. The primary interests of measure were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential outcomes in patients with low- and high-volume disease as well as de novo and metachronous metastasis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 11 RCTs were included for meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs). We found that the triplet combinations outperformed DOC + ADT in terms of OS (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.84) and PFS (pooled HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42-0.58). There was no statistically significant difference between patients with low- and high-volume disease in terms of an OS benefit from adding an ARSI to DOC +ADT (both HR: 0.79; p = 1). Based on NMAs, triplet therapy also outperformed ARSI + ADT in terms of OS (DAR + DOC + ADT: pooled HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-0.99) and PFS (ABI + DOC + ADT: HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.91, and ENZ + DOC + ADT: HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53-0.93). An analysis of treatment ranking among de novo mHSPC patients showed that triplet therapy had the highest likelihood of improved OS in patients with high-volume disease; however, doublet therapy using ARSI + ADT had the highest likelihood of improved OS in patients with low-volume disease.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the triplet combination therapy improves survival endpoints in mHSPC patients compared with currently available doublet treatment regimens. Our findings need to be confirmed in further head-to-head trials with longer follow-up and among various patient populations.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our study suggests that triplet therapy with androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, docetaxel, androgen deprivation therapy prolongs survival in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer compared with the current standard doublet therapy.

The Health Economics of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive and Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer—A Systematic Literature Review with Application to the Canadian Context

Background: Health economic evaluations are needed to assess the impact on the healthcare system of emerging treatment patterns for advanced prostate cancer. The objective of this study is to review the scientific literature identifying cost-effectiveness and cost analyses that are assessing treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Methods: On 29 June 2021, we searched the scientific (MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCO) and grey literature for health economic studies targeting mHSPC and nmCRPC. We used the CHEC-extended checklist and the Welte checklist for risk-of-bias assessment and transferability analysis, respectively. Results: We retained 20 cost-effectiveness and 4 cost analyses in the mHSPC setting, and 14 cost-effectiveness and 6 cost analyses in the nmCRPC setting. Docetaxel in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was the most cost-effective treatment in the mHSPC setting. Apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide presented similar results vs. ADT alone and were identified as cost-effective treatments for nmCRPC. An increase in costs as patients transitioned from nmCRPC to mCRPC was noted. Conclusions: We concluded that there is an important unmet need for health economic evaluations in the mHSPC and nmCRPC setting incorporating real-world data to support healthcare decision making.