Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional local prostate radio therapy in metastatic prostate cancer from a medicare perspective

BACKGROUND

Metastatic prostate cancer remains a therapeutic challenge. Based on data of the STAMPEDE trial, patients with a low metastatic burden showed prolonged failure-free and overall survival when treated with prostate radio therapy (RT) in addition to standard of care (SOC). The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of additional prostate RT compared to SOC alone for following subgroups: non-regional lymph node (NRLN) metastases, up to three bone metastases and four or more bone metastases.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was implemented with clinical data from STAMPEDE trial. Analyses were performed from a United States healthcare system perspective. Costs for treatment and adverse events were derived from Medicare coverage. Utilities for health states were derived from public databases and literature. Outcome measurements included incremental costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set to USD 100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

Additional RT led to 0.92 incremental QALYs with increased costs of USD 26,098 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 28,452/QALY for patients with only NRLN metastases and 3.83 incremental QALYs with increased costs of USD 153,490 with an ICER of USD 40,032/QALY for patients with up to three bone metastases. Sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the model regarding various parameters. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations, additional RT was found as the cost-effective strategy in over 96% for both subgroups iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 100,000/QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional RT is cost-effective in patients with only NRLN metastases and up to three metastases compared to SOC.

[Prostate cancer screening? Only evidence-based, risk-adjusted, and organized!]

In view of a recent recommendation of the European Commission to conceptualize novel screening approaches for lung, gastric, and prostate cancer, Germany is also invoked to revise its prostate early detection program. This discussion article provides an overview of new findings on prostate cancer screening, which suggest an organized and risk-adapted screening approach. Based on the German risk-adapted screening trial PROBASE, together with recently published data on organized screening programs in Europe, model projects should be established to determine the specific modalities for a new organized and risk-adapted prostate cancer screening program.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Intensification of Treatment in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in India

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Androgen-deprivation therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the intensification of treatment with either docetaxel or novel anti-androgens (abiraterone-acetate plus prednisone [AAP], enzalutamide, and apalutamide) is being recommended based on the improved clinical outcomes and quality of life among patients. This study aimed to determine the most cost-effective drug for treatment intensification for patients with mHSPC in India.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with four health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, best supportive care, and death. Lifetime costs and consequences were estimated for four treatment sequences: AAP-first, enzalutamide-first, apalutamide-first, and docetaxel-first. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and assessed for cost effectiveness using a willingness to pay threshold of 1 × per capita gross domestic product in India.

RESULTS

We estimated that the total lifetime cost per patient was ₹1,367,454 (US$17,487), ₹2,168,885 (US$27,735), ₹7,678,501 (US$98,190), and ₹1,358,746 (US$17,375) in the AAP-first, enzalutamide-first, apalutamide-first, and docetaxel-first treatment sequence, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years lived per patient were 4.78, 5.03, 3.22, and 2.61, respectively. The AAP-first sequence incurs an incremental cost of ₹4014 (US$51) per quality-adjusted life-year gained as compared with the docetaxel-first sequence, with a 87% probability of being cost effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 × per-capita gross domestic product of India. The use of AAP-first also incurs an incremental net monetary benefit of ₹396,491 (US$5070) as compared with the docetaxel-first treatment sequence. Nearly a 48% reduction in the price of enzalutamide is required to make it a cost-effective treatment sequence as compared with AAP-first in India.

CONCLUSIONS

We concur with the inclusion of standard-dose AAP in India's publicly financed health insurance scheme for the intensification of treatment in mHSPC as it is the only cost-effective sequence among the various novel anti-androgens when compared with the docetaxel-first treatment sequence. Furthermore, a systematic reduction in the price of enzalutamide would further help to improve clinical outcomes among patients with mHSPC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 treatments in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a public-payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Recently, several new treatment regimens have been approved for treating metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, building on androgen deprivation therapy alone. These include docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel. There are no validated predictive biomarkers for choosing a specific regimen. The goal of this study was to conduct a health economic outcome evaluation to determine the optimal treatment from the US public sector (Veterans Affairs).

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model in which metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients transitioned between 3 health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (7208 patients). The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost input parameters included initial and subsequent treatment costs and costs for terminal care and for managing grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events and were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature.

RESULTS

Average 10-year costs ranged from $34 349 (androgen deprivation therapy) to $658 928 (darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy) and mean QALYs ranged from 3.25 (androgen deprivation therapy) to 4.57 (enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy). Treatment strategies docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy docetaxel, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, and darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy were eliminated because of dominance (ie, they were more costly and less effective than other strategies). Of the remaining strategies, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios = $21 247/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Our simulation model found abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy to be an optimal first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from a public (Veterans Affairs) payer perspective.

Radiation therapy for prostate cancer in Syrian refugees: facing the need for change

Purpose

To report the utilization of radiation therapy in Syrian refugee patients with prostate cancer residing in Turkey.

Methods and materials

A multi-institutional retrospective review including 14 cancer centers in Turkey was conducted to include 137 Syrian refugee patients with prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy (RT). Toxicity data was scored using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Noncompliance was defined as a patient missing two or more scheduled RT appointments.

Results

Advanced disease, defined as stage III or IV, was reported in 64.2% of patients while androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was only administrated to 20% of patients. Conventionally fractionated RT with a median number of 44 fractions was delivered to all patients with curative intent (n = 61) while palliative RT (n = 76) was delivered with a median number of 10 fractions. The acute grade 3-4 toxicity rate for the entire cohort was 16%. Noncompliance rate was 42%.

Conclusion

Most Syrian refugee prostate cancer patients presented with advanced disease however ADT was seldom used. Despite the low treatment compliance rate, conventional fractionation was used in all patients. Interventions are critically needed to improve screening and increase the use of standard-of-care treatment paradigms, including hypofractionated RT and ADT.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Objective

The ASTRUM-007 trial (NCT03958890) demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy administered every 2-week significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with previously untreated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC.

Methods

A partitioned survival model with a 2-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The survival data, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the ASTRUM-007 trial, YAOZHI database and published sources. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $33,460.86, which had an ICER of $124,483.07 per QALY. The subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $134,637.42 and $105,589.71 in advanced ESCC patients with 1 ≤ CPS < 10 and CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The price of serplulimab, patient weight, utility values and discount rate were the most influential parameters on base-case results. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita GDP ($40,587.59) in 2022, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0% compared with chemotherapy. When the price of serplulimab decreased by 70%, the probabilities of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective were 81.42%, 67.74% and 96.75% in advanced ESCC patients with PD-L1-positive, PD-L1 1≤CPS<10 and CPS≥10, respectively.

Conclusion

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC might not be cost-effective in China.

Economic evaluation of five first-line PD-(L)1 inhibitors for treating non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis

Background and objective: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most malignant cancer types that causes substantial economic burden in China. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line anti-PD-(L)1 treatments, including sintilimab, camrelizumab, atezolizumab, pembrolizumab and sugemalimab with each combined with chemotherapy, for treating advanced non-squamous NSCLC (nsq-NSCLC) from Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: Clinical data were obtained from the following clinical trials, namely, ORIENT-11, CameL, IMpower132, KEYNOTE-189 and GEMSTONE-302. A network meta-analysis was performed based on fractional polynomial models. We constructed a partitioned survival model with a three-week cycle length and a lifetime horizon to derive the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probablistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness. Additionally, two scenario analyses were undertaken to investigate the impact of Patient Assistant Program on the economic conclusion and to explore potential uncertainty associated with population representativeness of the global trial. Results: Compared with camrelizumab + chemotherapy, sugemalimab + chemotherapy and atezolizumab + chemotherapy were dominated, and the ICERs generated from sintilimab + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy were $15,280.83/QALY and $159,784.76/QALY, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that uncertainty around ICERs was mainly driven by HR related parameters derived from NMA and drug price. The probablistic sensitivity analysis suggested that camrelizumab treatment was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1-time GDP per capita. When the threshold was set as 3-time GDP per capita, sintilimab strategy demonstrated the excellent cost-effective advantage. Sensitivity analysis proved the reliability of base-case results. Results from two scenario analyses indicated that the primary finding was robust. Conclusion: In current context of Chinese healthcare system, sintilimab + chemotherapy appeared to be cost-effective for the treatment of nsq-NSCLC compared with sugemalimab, camrelizumab, pembrolizumab as well as atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy.