Cost effectiveness of chemohormonal therapy in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive and non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer

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.

Estimating Quality of Life Decrements in Oncology Using Time to Death

OBJECTIVES

The estimation of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) requires the extrapolation of both length and quality of life (QoL). The extrapolation of QoL has received little attention in the literature. Here we explore the predictive value of "time to death" (TTD) for extrapolating QoL in oncology.

METHODS

We used QoL and survival data from the Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship registry, which is linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry. QoL was assessed with EQ-5D and SF-6D. We tested the relationship between TTD and QoL using linear, 2-part, and beta regression models. Incremental QALYs were compared using the TTD approach and an annual age-related disutility approach using artificial survival data with varying mortality rates.

RESULTS

A total of 6 samples with >100 patients each were used for the analysis. A declining pattern in QoL was observed when patients were closer to death, confirming the predictive value of TTD for QoL. The declining pattern in QoL was most pronounced when QoL was measured with SF-6D. Proximity to death had a larger impact on QoL than age. Incremental QALYs were higher using the TTD approach than annual age-related disutility, ranging from +0.139 to +0.00003 depending on mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

TTD is a predictor variable for QoL. Using TTD allows cost-effectiveness models that lack QoL data to extrapolate morbidity using overall survival estimates. The TTD approach generates more incremental QALYs than an annual age-related disutility, most notably for longer survival periods.

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.

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.

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 docetaxel in high-volume hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Three pivotal trials have considered the addition of docetaxel (D) chemotherapy to conventional androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of metastatic hormone- sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). While an initial small trial was inconclusive, two larger trials demonstrated significant clinical benefit, including pronounced survival benefits (added 17 months) among patients with high-volume metastatic disease. Given the evolving clinical evidence, the cost-effectiveness of this approach warrants exploration.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of six cycles of ADT+D compared to ADT alone to treat patients with high-volume metastatic HSPC was assessed from a Canadian public payer perspective. We included three health states: HSPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and death. Survival data were obtained from the CHAARTED trial, which reported outcomes specifically for high-volume disease. We used Ontario costs data and utilities from the literature.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, ADT+D cost an additional $25 757 and produced an extra 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24 226/QALY gained. Results from one-way sensitivity analysis across wide ranges of estimates and a range of scenarios, including an alternate model structure, produced ICERs below $35 000/QALY gained in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of D with ADT in high-volume metastatic HSPC appears to be an economically attractive treatment approach. The findings were consistent with other studies and robust in sensitivity analysis across a variety of scenarios.

Comparative clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade, docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy and ADT alone for the treatment of mHSPC in China

Aim: To compare the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade (MAB), docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (Doc-ADT) and ADT alone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China. Methods: A network meta-analysis and a Markov model were adopted for effectiveness and economic evaluation. Results: The hazard ratios of overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.782 and 0.628 for Doc-ADT versus ADT alone; 0.897 and 0.824 for MAB versus ADT alone. Doc-ADT was cost-effective compared with MAB and ADT alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 96,848 and CNY 67,758 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. MAB was cost-effective compared with ADT alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 137,487 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Doc-ADT is likely the optimal option from the perspective of both clinical outcomes and economic considerations.

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone versus docetaxel in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the US. Since 2015, landmark studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with the use of docetaxel (DCT) or abiraterone (AA) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the metastatic hormone-naïve setting. These treatment strategies have not been prospectively compared but have similar overall survival benefits despite differing mechanisms of action, toxicity, and cost. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to provide insight into the value of AA vs. DCT in the first-line treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and a 3-year time horizon to estimate costs (2018 US$) and progression-free quality-adjusted life years (PF-QALYs) for ADT alone, DCT, and AA. Health states were defined as initial state, treatment states according to experience of an adverse event, and progressed disease/death. State transition probabilities were derived from rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death from the randomized phase III trials ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) and LATITUDE. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

DCT resulted in an increase of 0.32 PF-QALYs and $16,100 in cost and AA resulted in an increase of 0.52 PF-QALYs and $215,800 in cost compared to ADT alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DCT vs. ADT was $50,500/PF-QALY and for AA vs. DCT was $1,010,000/PF-QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/PF-QALY AA was highly unlikely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

DCT is substantially more cost-effective than AA in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation.

METHODS

We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects.

RESULTS

Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

Hypoxia and Noncoding RNAs in Taxane Resistance

Taxanes are chemotherapeutic drugs employed in the clinic to treat a variety of malignancies. Despite their overall efficacy, cancer cells often display resistance to taxanes. Therefore, new strategies to increase the effectiveness of taxane-based chemotherapeutics are urgently needed. Multiple molecular players are linked to taxane resistance; these include efflux pumps, DNA repair mechanisms, and hypoxia-related pathways. In addition, emerging evidence indicates that both non-coding RNAs and epigenetic effectors might also be implicated in taxane resistance. Here we focus on the causes of taxane resistance, with the aim to envisage an integrated model of the 'taxane resistance phenome'. This model could help the development of novel therapeutic strategies to treat taxane-resistant neoplasms.