Cost-effectiveness model of abiraterone plus prednisone, cabazitaxel plus prednisone and enzalutamide for visceral metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer therapy after docetaxel therapy resistance

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of enzalutamide in comparison to abiraterone in treatment of metastatic prostate cancer resistant to castration in Iran

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, enzalutamide and abiraterone have been widely used as treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the cost-effectiveness of these drugs in Iran is unknown. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer resistant to castration in Iran.

METHODS

A 3-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide and abiraterone from a social perspective over 10 years. The clinical inputs were obtained from the meta-analysis studies. The direct medical costs were obtained from the tariffs of the healthcare system, while the direct non-medical and indirect costs were collected from the patients. The data of utilities were derived from the literature. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainties.

RESULTS

Compared with Abiraterone, enzalutamide was associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6,260 per QALY gained. According to the one-way sensitivity analysis, ICER was most heavily influenced by the prices of enzalutamide and Abiraterone, non-medical costs, and indirect costs. Regardless of the variation, enzalutamide remained cost-effective. The budget impact analysis of enzalutamide in the health system during 5 years was estimated at $6,362,127.

CONCLUSIONS

At current prices, adding enzalutamide to pharmaceutical lists represents the cost-effective use of the healthcare resources in Iran for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Treatment landscape and burden of disease in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: systematic and structured literature reviews

Purpose

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a lethal disease that imposes a major burden on patients and healthcare systems. Three structured literature reviews (treatment guidelines, treatment landscape, and human/clinical/patient burden) and one systematic literature review (economic burden) were conducted to better understand the disease burden and unmet needs for patients with late-stage mCRPC, for whom optimal treatment options are unclear.

Methods

Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, the CENTRAL database (structured and systematic reviews), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database (systematic review only) were searched for English-language records from 2009 to 2021 to identify mCRPC treatment guidelines and studies related to the treatment landscape and the humanistic/economic burden of mCRPC in adult men (aged ≥18 years) of any ethnicity.

Results

In total, six records were included for the treatment patterns review, 14 records for humanistic burden, nine records for economic burden, three records (two studies) for efficacy, and eight records for safety. Real-world treatment patterns were broadly aligned with treatment guidelines and provided no optimal treatment sequencing beyond second line other than palliative care. Current post-docetaxel treatments in mCRPC are associated with adverse events that cause relatively high rates of treatment discontinuation or disruption. The humanistic and economic burdens associated with mCRPC are high.

Conclusion

The findings highlight a lack of treatment options with novel mechanisms of action and more tolerable safety profiles that satisfy a risk-to-benefit ratio aligned with patient needs and preferences for patients with late-stage mCRPC. Treatment approaches that improve survival and health-related quality of life are needed, ideally while simultaneously reducing costs and healthcare resource utilization.

New insights into molecular signaling pathways and current advancements in prostate cancer diagnostics & therapeutics

Prostate adenocarcinoma accounts for more than 20% of deaths among males due to cancer. It is the fifth-leading cancer diagnosed in males across the globe. The mortality rate is quite high due to prostate cancer. Despite the fact that advancements in diagnostics and therapeutics have been made, there is a lack of effective drugs. Metabolic pathways are altered due to the triggering of androgen receptor (AR) signaling pathways, and elevated levels of dihydrotestosterone are produced due to defects in AR signaling that accelerate the growth of prostate cancer cells. Further, PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways interact with AR signaling pathway and act as precursors to promote prostate cancer. Prostate cancer therapy has been classified into luminal A, luminal B, and basal subtypes. Therapeutic drugs inhibiting dihydrotestosterone and PI3K have shown to give promising results to combat prostate cancer. Many second-generation Androgen receptor signaling antagonists are given either as single agent or with the combination of other drugs. In order to develop a cure for metastasized prostate cancer cells, Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is applied by using surgical or chemical methods. In many cases, Prostatectomy or local radiotherapy are used to control metastasized prostate cancer. However, it has been observed that after 1.5 years to 2 years of Prostatectomy or castration, there is reoccurrence of prostate cancer and high incidence of castration resistant prostate cancer is seen in population undergone ADT. It has been observed that Androgen derivation therapy combined with drugs like abiraterone acetate or docetaxel improve overall survival rate in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients. Scientific investigations have revealed that drugs inhibiting poly ADP Ribose polymerase (PARP) are showing promising results in clinical trials in the prostate cancer population with mCRPC and DNA repair abnormalities. Recently, RISUG adv (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) has shown significant results against prostate cancer cell lines and MTT assay has validated substantial effects of this drug against PC3 cell lines. Current review paper highlights the advancements in prostate cancer therapeutics and new drug molecules against prostate cancer. It will provide detailed insights on the signaling pathways which need to be targeted to combat metastasized prostate cancer and castration resistant prostate cancer.

Avelumab Maintenance Treatment After First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, a clinical trial (NCT02603432) showed that avelumab maintenance treatment, post first-line chemotherapy, can significantly prolong the overall survival of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC), however, the treatment was very expensive. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of avelumab maintenance therapy in advanced or metastatic UC from the US taxpayer perspective.

METHODS

Based on the data of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 clinical trial (NCT02603432), a Markov multi-state model was constructed to investigate the costs and clinical outcomes of avelumab maintenance after platinum-based chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced or metastatic UC. Parameters of the model came from the 2020 Average Sales Price Drug Pricing Files and published literature. The main outputs were costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Robustness was tested by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The analysis was stratified to include both the overall population and a subset of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive patients.

RESULTS

Avelumab maintenance therapy was estimated to generate an additional 0.26 QALYs (1.46 vs. 1.20 QALYs) and costs $183,271 ($278,323 vs. $95,052) more compared to BSC alone in the overall population, yielding an ICER of $699,065/QALY. For the PD-L1-positive population, avelumab produced a 0.42 increase in QALYs (1.74 vs. 1.32 QALYs) and raised costs to $223,238 ($320,355 vs. $97,117), resulting in an ICER of $521,850/QALY for this population. Both ICERs were above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses manifested that the model was robust.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the US taxpayer, avelumab maintenance therapy is considered cost-ineffective for patients with advanced or metastatic UC at a WTP threshold of $200,000/QALY in the overall population as well as in PD-L1-positive population.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 177Lu-PSMA-617 Radioligand Therapy in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer poses a therapeutic challenge with poor prognosis. The VISION trial showed prolonged progression-free and overall survival in patients treated with lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (177Lu-PSMA-617) radioligand therapy compared with using the standard of care (SoC) alone. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-PSMA-617 treatment compared with SoC therapy.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed using data from the VISION trial, which included overall and progression-free survival and treatment regimens for 177Lu-PSMA-617 and SoC. Treatment costs, utilities for health states, and adverse events were derived from public databases and the literature. Because 177Lu-PSMA-617 was only recently approved, costs for treatment were extrapolated from 177Lu-DOTATATE. Outcome measurements included the incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a healthcare system perspective over the lifetime horizon of 60 months. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set to $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

The 177Lu-PSMA-617 group was estimated to gain 0.42 incremental QALYs. Treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-617 led to an increase in costs compared with SoC ($169,110 vs $85,398). The incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio for 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy was $200,708/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the model regarding various parameters, which remained cost-effective at all lower and upper parameter bounds. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations, therapy using 177Lu-PSMA-617 was determined as the cost-effective strategy in 37.14% of all iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $200,000/QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-617 was estimated to add a notable clinical benefit over SoC alone. Based on the model results, radioligand therapy represents a treatment strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with cost-effectiveness in certain scenarios.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in China and United States

Background

Metastatic prostate cancer is initially sensitive to androgen receptor inhibition, but eventually becomes metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Olaparib has longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. In the present study, 2 Markov models were established to analyze the cost utility of olaparib in treating mCRPC from the perspectives of health services in China and the United States.

Methods

Markov models were established to simulate the progress of mCRPC in China and the United States. The state transition probabilities and clinical data were extracted from the PROfound trial. The cost data were estimated from local pricing, the relevant literature and expert consultancy. The health outcomes are expressed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented in US dollars. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the models.

Results

Based on the Chinese Markov model, the base case ICER for olaparib versus the control group was ¥392,727.87, with incremental costs of ¥93,673.23 and an incremental QALY of 0.23, indicating that it was not cost effective from the aspect of the Chinese healthcare system. However, as shown by the American Markov model, olaparib was dominant versus the control group, with a cost saving of $69,675.20 and a gain of 0.23 QALYs. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the modeling results were not significantly affected by the model parameters.

Conclusions

Olaparib treatment in patients with mCRPC is not cost effective in China, but it is cost saving in the United States.

Leptin modulated microRNA-628-5p targets Jagged-1 and inhibits prostate cancer hallmarks

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are single-stranded non-coding RNA molecules that play a regulatory role in gene expression and cancer cell signaling. We previously identified miR-628-5p (miR-628) as a potential biomarker in serum samples from men with prostate cancer (PCa) (Srivastava et al. in Tumour Biol 35:4867–4873, 10.1007/s13277-014-1638-1, 2014). This study examined the detailed cellular phenotypes and pathways regulated by miR-628 in PCa cells. Since obesity is a significant risk factor for PCa, and there is a correlation between levels of the obesity-associated hormone leptin and PCa development, here we investigated the functional relationship between leptin and miR-628 regulation in PCa. We demonstrated that exposure to leptin downregulated the expression of miR-628 and increased cell proliferation/migration in PCa cells. We next studied the effects on cancer-related phenotypes in PCa cells after altering miR-628 expression levels. Enforced expression of miR-628 in PCa cells inhibited cell proliferation, reduced PCa cell survival/migration/invasion/spheroid formation, and decreased markers of cell stemness. Mechanistically, miR-628 binds with the JAG1-3′UTR and inhibits the expression of Jagged-1 (JAG1). JAG1 inhibition by miR-628 downregulated Notch signaling, decreased the expression of Snail/Slug, and modulated epithelial-mesenchymal transition and invasiveness in PC3 cells. Furthermore, expression of miR-628 in PCa cells increased sensitivity towards the drugs enzalutamide and docetaxel by induction of cell apoptosis. Collectively our data suggest that miR-628 is a key regulator of PCa carcinogenesis and is modulated by leptin, offering a novel therapeutic opportunity to inhibit the growth of advanced PCa.

The Hospitalization-Related Costs of Adverse Events for Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Three novel androgen receptor inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. All three therapies have demonstrated prolonged metastasis-free survival in their respective phase III trials, with differing safety profiles. The objective of this study was to compare the mean per-patient costs of all-cause adverse events (AEs) requiring hospitalization between darolutamide versus apalutamide and enzalutamide for nmCRPC in the USA.

METHODS

All-cause grade ≥ 3 AEs with corresponding any-grade AEs reported among at least 10% of patients in any arm of the ARAMIS (darolutamide), SPARTAN (apalutamide), and PROSPER (enzalutamide) trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analyses. After matching-adjusted indirect comparison, AE costs were calculated by multiplying the AE rates from the trials by their respective unit costs of hospitalization taken from the US Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database. Sensitivity analyses which further included any-grade AEs reported among at least 5% of patients were also performed.

RESULTS

After reweighting and adjusting for the trials' placebo arms, the mean per-patient AE costs were $1021 and $387 lower for darolutamide than for apalutamide and enzalutamide, respectively, over the trials' duration (SPARTAN and PROSPER, 43 months; ARAMIS, 48 months). For darolutamide vs. apalutamide, the largest drivers of the per-patient cost differences were fracture (adjusted difference $416), hypertension ($143), and rash ($219); for darolutamide vs. enzalutamide, they were fatigue not including asthenia ($290) and hypertension including increased blood pressure (i.e., any AE of hypertension or with elevated blood pressure not yet classified as hypertension) ($60). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with nmCRPC treated with darolutamide in ARAMIS incurred lower AE-related costs (USD), as determined using HCUP costing data, compared with patients treated with either apalutamide (in SPARTAN) or enzalutamide (in PROSPER).

Is olaparib cost effective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one favorable gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM?

Aim: To compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib versus control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM from the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties. Results: The base-case result indicated that, for patients with specific gene mutations, olaparib gained 1.26 QALYs and USD$157,732 total cost. Compared with control treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olaparib was USD$248,248/QALY. The price of olaparib was the most influential parameter. Conclusion: Olaparib is not cost effective in comparison with control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with specific gene mutations.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of pharmaceutical treatment options for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is one of the most common neoplasms in men. For many years the mainstay of treatment was androgen deprivation therapy, but during last decade many novel agents have emerged, accompanied by increased costs for healthcare systems.

AREAS COVERED

In this literature review, the authors provide a pharmacoeconomic review of several pharmaceutical agents used in several disease stages, by summarizing evidence from cost-analysis, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-saving, cost-benefit and budgetary impact analysis studies.

EXPERT OPINION

The rapid development of therapeutic agents for prostate cancer has put a great budgetary burden on healthcare systems, since these drugs are prolonging survival and improving quality of life . Since existing data are now mature enough from a number of clinical trials with long-term follow-up, policy makers should propose not only the most clinically effective but also the most cost-effective agents, in order for every patient to gain access at least to some of these therapies. Docetaxel addition seems to be a cost-effective option, when compared to both abiraterone and enzalutamide (due to costs related to acquisition and side effects). Cabazitaxel is a strong candidate after docetaxel failure, while both denosumab and bisphosphonates are cost-effective for reducing skeletal-related events in metastatic disease.

An up-to-date evaluation of abiraterone for the treatment of prostate cancer

Introduction: Abiraterone acetate, an oral 17-alpha-hydroxylase inhibitor, effectively prevents the synthesis of androgens from steroid precursors. Abiraterone has become a standard of care in patients with metastatic prostate cancer due to its efficacy in both castrate-sensitive and castrate-resistant disease when given in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Abiraterone may have a role in additional aspects of prostate cancer treatment in the future.Areas covered: The present article focuses on the development and establishment of abiraterone among the available treatment options for prostate cancer. A literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline for prior studies and reviews of the drug. Current clinical trials were examined in the Clinicaltrials.gov database.Expert opinion: Abiraterone has shown efficacy in castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer, providing an additional degree of hormonal sensitivity for tumors resistant to ADT. Impressively, abiraterone in conjunction with ADT as a first-line treatment for castrate-sensitive prostate cancer also confers a significant overall survival benefit compared to ADT alone. With minimal additional toxicity, abiraterone has established itself as a well-tolerated, convenient, and effective treatment option. Ongoing studies are expected to broaden the drug's indications as well as its preference among other prostate cancer therapies.

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

BACKGROUND

The optimal therapeutic strategies for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) followed by metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), in terms of cost and effectiveness, remains unknown. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various potential strategies, from the start of first-line treatment in mHSPC to the death of the patients.

METHODS

Two Markov decision-analysis models were developed, one for cohort A "asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients in mCRPC", and one for cohort B "symptomatic patients in mCRPC". Each strategy reflects daily practice for mHSPC until progression in mCRPC from the start of first treatment regimen with either docetaxel or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) in mHSPC to the death of the patient. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the French public health care system perspective. Only direct medical costs were included. Survival data were extracted from results of published randomized clinical trials.

RESULTS

For cohort A, docetaxel followed by AA is the most cost-effective therapeutic strategy (€96,925 for 4.24 life-years). For cohort B, docetaxel followed by docetaxel is the most cost-effective therapeutic strategy (€81,463 for 4.05 life-years). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our results except for a price reduction of 70% for AA or enzalutamide.

CONCLUSION

Our approach is innovative to the extent that our analysis considers various potential strategies for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Our economic evaluation suggests that a price reduction of AA or enzalutamide impacts on the results. This approach must continue, including new drugs for patients with mPC.

Adding Enzalutamide to First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic profile of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) from the US and Chinese payers' perspectives.

Materials and Methods: A Markov model with three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, was constructed. All patients were assumed to enter the model in the PFS state and transit according to the transition structure. Efficacy data were derived from the ENZAMET trial and Weibull distribution curves were modeled to fit the survival curves. Costs in the model included cost of drugs, best-supportive care (BSC), follow-up, tests, and adverse events (AEs)-related treatments. The primary endpoint of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the impact of several key parameters on the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Overall, ICERs were $430,933.95/QALY and $225,444.74/QALY of addition of enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) vs. ADT from the US and Chinese payers' perspective, respectively. The most influential factors were the utility for the PFS state and the cost of enzalutamide. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000.00/QALY in the US and $28,988.40/QALY in China, the probability of adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment being a cost-effective option for mHSPC was 0%.

Conclusions: Based on the data from the ENZAMET trial and the current price of enzalutamide, adding enzalutamide to first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with mHSPC from the US and Chinse payers' perspectives.

Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Test-Directed Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Purpose: The effectiveness of poly (adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MCRPC) with multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genomic test-directed olaparib on MCRPC from the US payer perspective.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MCRPC had at least one gene alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2 and ATM (Scenario A) and has alterations in any of all 15 prespecified genes (Scenario B) after next-generation sequencing test. The efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the PROfound trial. Clinical probabilities related to survival were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each PROfound group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties.

Results: Olaparib yielded an additional 0.063 and 0.068 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with the augmented cost of $7,382 and saved the cost of $ 1,980 compared to standard care in scenario A and B, respectively, which yielded an ICER of $116,903/QALY and a cost-saving option. The lower weekly cost related to olaparib treatment led to the dominant findings in scenario B. The varied results between scenario A and B could be partly explained by different the number need to screen for identifying eligible patients who could be administered with olaparib, which sharply augmented the costs of the olaparib arm in scenario A. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis revealed the results were generally robust in both of two scenarios.

Conclusion: The genomic test-directed olaparib is a preferred option compared with standard care strategy for men with MCRPC who had any of all 15 prespecified genes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabazitaxel for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel and androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor resistance

Background

The aim of our study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel who had progression within 12 months while receiving an alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) from a US payer’s perspective.

Methods

To conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov decision model was established. Three health states (progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death) were included, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was regarded as the primary endpoint. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100,000.00/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and discounted rates were set at 3% annually. Efficacy data were derived from the CARD trial and Weibull distribution curves were modeled to fit the survival curves. The robustness of the analysis was tested with a series of one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Overall, the incremental effectiveness and cost of cabazitaxel versus androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitors (ASTIs) were 0.16 QALYs and $49,487.03, respectively, which yielded an ICER of $309,293.94/QALY. Our model was mostly sensitive to the duration of PFS in the cabazitaxel group, cost of cabazitaxel and utility of the PFS state. At a WTP threshold of $100,000.00/QALY, cabazitaxel was the dominant strategy in 0% of the simulations.

Conclusions

Cabazitaxel is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with ASTIs in patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel who had progression within 12 months while receiving ASTIs.

Lenalidomide plus rituximab Vs rituximab alone in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of lenalidomide plus rituximab vs rituximab alone in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma.

Methods

A Markov decision model was established to carry out the cost‐effectiveness analysis. Three discrete health states, progression‐free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, were included. Cycle length was set at 1 month, and utility scores were derived from previously published literature. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the primary endpoint, and the willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold was set at $29,306.43 per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY). Both cost and effectiveness were determined using a 3% annual discount rate. Furthermore, one‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to check the robustness of the model.

Results

Lenalidomide plus rituximab gained 6.08 QALYs at a cost of $120,979.62 while rituximab alone gained 4.84 QALYs at a cost of $48,052.11. The ICER of lenalidomide plus rituximab vs rituximab alone was $58,812.51/QALY. The parameters most significantly influenced the model were the utility values for the PFS state, the duration of the PFS state in the lenalidomide plus rituximab group, and the cost of lenalidomide. The probability of lenalidomide plus rituximab or rituximab alone being the most cost‐effective option was 0% and 100%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of $29,306.43/QALY.

Conclusions

Lenalidomide plus rituximab is not a cost‐effective strategy compared with rituximab monotherapy for relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma from a Chinese societal perspective.

Microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) promotes bicalutamide resistance and is associated with survival in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), facilitates tubulin assembly and microtubule stabilization. Several studies have shown that overexpression of MAPT is linked to poor prognosis and is involved in taxane resistance in cancer. This study aimed to assess the expression and function of MAPT in prostate cancer (CaP).

METHODS

The expression of MAPT was determined using immunohistochemistry in CaP. We analyzed the interaction between MAPT, Phosphatase and Tensin Homolog (PTEN), and androgen receptor and investigated the role of MAPT in bicalutamide resistance.

RESULTS

Immunohistochemistry in 155 CaP cases showed that 15% of them were positive for MAPT. High MAPT expression was significantly orrelated with high Gleason score and high T stage. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the high MAPT expression was significantly associated with poor prostate-specific antigen recurrence survival after radical prostatectomy. There was an inverse correlation between MAPT and PTEN. In the CaP cell lines, knockout of PTEN increased the expression of MAPT, whereas knockdown of MAPT suppressed the expression of androgen receptor and increased the sensitivity to bicalutamide. Furthermore, immunohistochemical staining of MAPT showed that high MAPT expression was significantly associated with poor overall survival in 74 CaP patients who were treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that MAPT may be a promising predictive biomarker for survival and play an essential role in bicalutamide resistance in CaP.