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

Combination treatment in metastatic prostate cancer: is the bar too high or have we fallen short?

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone has been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer for the past century. Based on results from landmark trials in the past decade, combination approaches of ADT with chemotherapy or novel hormonal agents have established a new standard of care for these patients. This paradigm shift in treatment has been reflected in the updates to guideline recommendations of major professional associations. However, real-world data from around the world have highlighted the dismal adoption of combination therapy, despite evidence-based recommendations. The disparity between evidence and practice is concerning, especially with emerging evidence of survival benefit with further treatment intensification using triplet combinations (ADT, docetaxel and novel hormonal agents). Thus, a pressing need to raise awareness and call the uro-oncology community to action exists to deliver evidence-based care for these patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of androgen deprivation therapy with relugolix for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Relugolix treatment of advanced prostate cancer (APC), like other gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonists, results in rapid decrease in testosterone concentrations without the risk of flare, as seen in leuprolide. Despite this benefit over leuprolide, no economic evaluation assessment to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of relugolix has been conducted. Therefore, this study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with 120 mg relugolix against 7.5 mg leuprolide for the treatment of APC.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to assess and compare the costs of APC treatment from a health care payer's perspective and the effectiveness of ADT with relugolix and leuprolide at the three lines of APC treatment among modified intent-to-treat patients. Relative progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated. Outcomes measured in the analyses included costs of the drugs and therapies, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness acceptability, and probability curves.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed the ICER for ADT with relugolix to be US $49,571.1 per QALY. At the ICER value, the sensitivity analysis indicated that ADT with leuprolide was dominant in 100% of the simulations. ADT acceptance with relugolix was 100% when a willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US $100,000/QALY. At 5-years, the relative PFS and OS rates for relugolix at the first line of therapy were 72.7% and 86.0%, respectively, compared to 61.0% and 85.90% for leuprolide.

CONCLUSION

Though the influence of adverse events was not considered in the analysis, ADT with relugolix was not a cost-effective choice for APC management. While the analysis revealed a slight chance of sustaining testosterone suppression with relugolix, ADT with relugolix provided no significant survival advantages over ADT with leuprolide. Therefore, this analysis confirms no need for further assessment of APC interventions to make informed decisions beneficial to the APC patients, oncologists, and other stakeholders.

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.

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.

Consensus for Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

PURPOSE

International guideline recommendations may not always be extrapolated to developing countries where access to resources is limited. In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), there have been successful drug and imaging advancements that were addressed in the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries for best-practice and limited-resource scenarios.

METHODS

A total of 24 out of 300 questions addressed staging, treatment, and follow-up for patients with mCSPC both in best-practice settings and resource-limited settings. Responses were compiled and presented in percentage of clinicians supporting each response. Questions had 4-8 options for response.

RESULTS

Recommendations for staging in mCSPC were split but there was consensus that chest x-ray, abdominal and pelvic computed tomography, and bone scan should be used where resources are limited. In both de novo and relapsed low-volume mCSPC, orchiectomy alone in limited resources was favored and in relapsed high-volume disease, androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel in limited resources and androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone in high-resource settings were consensus. A 3-weekly regimen of docetaxel was consensus among voters. When using abiraterone, a regimen of 1,000 mg plus prednisone 5 mg/d is optimal, but in limited-resource settings, half the panel agreed that abiraterone 250 mg with fatty foods plus prednisone 5 mg/d is acceptable. The panel recommended against the use of osteoclast-targeted therapy to prevent osseous complications. There was consensus that monitoring of patients undergoing systemic treatment should only be conducted in case of prostate-specific antigen elevation or progression-suggestive symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The treatment recommendations for most topics addressed differed between the best-practice setting and resource-limited setting, accentuating the need for high-quality evidence that contemplates the effect of limited resources on the management of mCSPC.

Systemic therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: network meta-analysis

Objectives

To perform a systematic review and network meta‐analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments for the management of metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), as there has been a paradigm shift with the use of next‐generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) and docetaxel.

Methods

Multiple databases were searched for articles published before May 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis extension statement for network meta‐analysis. Studies comparing overall/progression‐free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with mHSPC were eligible.

Results

Nine studies (N = 9960) were selected, and formal network meta‐analyses were conducted. Abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76–0.90), docetaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.82–0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.73–0.99) were associated with significantly better OS than androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and abiraterone emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.71, 95% CrI 0.67–0.76), apalutamide (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.65–0.81), docetaxel (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.78–0.90), and enzalutamide (HR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.63–0.71) were associated with significantly better PFS than ADT, and enzalutamide emerged as the best option. Abiraterone (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.78–0.93), apalutamide (HR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.77–0.98), and enzalutamide (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.73–0.88) were significantly more effective than docetaxel. Regarding AEs, apalutamide was the likely best option among the three ARIs. In patients with low‐volume mHSPC, enzalutamide was the best option in terms of OS and PFS.

Conclusions

All three ARIs are effective therapies for mHSPC; apalutamide was the best tolerated. All three seemed more effective than docetaxel. These findings may facilitate individualised treatment strategies and inform future comparative trials.

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.

Population-Based Study of Docetaxel or Abiraterone Effectiveness and Predictive Markers of Progression Free Survival in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Both Docetaxel (DOC) and Abiraterone (ABI) improve the survival of men with metastatic, castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). However, the outcome among mCSPC patients is highly variable, while there is a lack of predictive markers of therapeutic benefit. Furthermore, there is limited data on the comparative real-world effectiveness of adding DOC or ABI to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 121 mCSPC patients treated at Odette Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON, Canada) between Dec 2014 and Mar 2021 (DOC n = 79, ABI n = 42). The primary endpoint studied was progression free survival (PFS), defined as the interval from start of ADT to either (i) biochemical, radiological, or symptomatic progression, (ii) start of first-line systemic therapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), or (iii) death, whichever occurred first. To identify independent predictive factors for PFS in the entire cohort, a Cox proportional hazard model (stepwise selection) was applied. Overall survival (OS) was among secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 39.6 and 25.1 months in the DOC and ABI cohorts, respectively, 79.7% of men in the DOC and 40.5% in the ABI group experienced a progression event. PFS favored the ABI cohort (p = 0.0038, log-rank test), with 78.0% (95%CI 66.4-91.8%) of ABI versus 67.1% (57.5-78.3%) of DOC patients being free of progression at 12 months. In univariate analysis superior PFS was significantly related to older age at diagnosis of mCSPC, metachronous metastatic presentation, low-volume (CHAARTED), and low-risk (LATITUDE) disease, ≥90% PSA decrease at 3 months (PSA90), and PSA nadir ≤0.2 at 6 months. Age (HR = 0.955), PSA90 (HR = 0.462), and LATITUDE risk stratification (HR = 1.965) remained significantly associated with PFS in multivariable analysis. OS at 12 months was 98.7% (96.3-100%) and 92.7% (85.0-100%) in the DOC and ABI groups (p = 0.97), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world group of men undergoing treatment intensification with DOC or ABI for mCSPC, we did not find a significant difference in OS, but PFS was favoring ABI. Age at diagnosis of mCSPC, PSA90 at 3 months and LATITUDE risk classification are predictive factors of PFS in men with mCSPC.

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.

The cost of metastatic prostate cancer using time-driven activity-based costing

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) treatment using the time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) method from the perspective of a philanthropic hospital in the Brazilian public health system (PHS) and to identify determinants of costs.

METHODS

We used data from patients who received docetaxel chemotherapy in the Brazilian PHS from September 2012 to May 2017. Direct medical costs were estimated with the TDABC microcosting method, taking into account the multiple departments and services the patients interacted with during their oncological treatment.

RESULTS

The median overall survival of the forty-three patient sample was 1.8 years (95% CI 1.45-2.30), and the total cost of the sample was BRL 917.005 (USD 250,878). The median monthly cost per patient was BRL 20.201 (USD 5,526). The end-of-life cost per patient using the TDABC method was BRL 5.151 (USD 1,409). Patients who had received previous treatment at the center registered the lowest cost for hospitalizations and exams, suggesting an opportunity to better manage healthcare resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study on the economic burden of mPC in the Brazilian PHS using the TDABC costing evaluation method. Accurate cost information obtained with the TDABC can be helpful in guiding disease management to guarantee better use of ever-scarcer resources.

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

PURPOSE

To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries.

METHODS

A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered.

RESULTS

Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy.

CONCLUSION

There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

Management of patients with high-risk and advanced prostate cancer in the Middle East: resource-stratified consensus recommendations

Purpose

Prostate cancer care in the Middle East is highly variable and access to specialist multidisciplinary management is limited. Academic tertiary referral centers offer cutting-edge diagnosis and treatment; however, in many parts of the region, patients are managed by non-specialists with limited resources. Due to many factors including lack of awareness and lack of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, a high percentage of men present with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis. The aim of these recommendations is to assist clinicians in managing patients with different levels of access to diagnostic and treatment modalities.

Methods

The first Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) satellite meeting for the Middle East was held in Beirut, Lebanon, November 2017. During this meeting a consortium of urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologist and imaging specialists practicing in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia voted on a selection of consensus questions. An additional workshop to formulate resource-stratified consensus recommendations was held in March 2019.

Results

Variations in practice based on available resources have been proposed to form resource-stratified recommendations for imaging at diagnosis, initial management of localized prostate cancer requiring therapy, treatment of castration-sensitive/naïve advanced prostate cancer and treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Conclusion

This is the first regional consensus on prostate cancer management from the Middle East. The following recommendations will be useful to urologists and oncologists practicing in all areas with limited access to specialist multi-disciplinary teams, diagnostic modalities and treatment resources.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-019-02872-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Abiraterone Acetate versus Docetaxel in the management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: Hong Kong's perspective

BACKGROUND

Several randomized control trials (RCTs) have showed that adding either abiraterone acetate (AA) or docetaxel (D) to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients (mCSPC). Yet, the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options has not been fully compared under Hong Kong's setting. This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) serves as the first study in Hong Kong to compare the economic value of these two combinations ADT + AA vs. ADT + D.

METHODS

A deterministic Markov model is used to project cost-effectiveness of each treatment until death. Survival curves for progression/death were extracted and digitized from the five RCTs (CHAARTED, LATITUDE, two STAMPEDE (2016/2017), and GETUG-AFU15). Clinically significant adverse events (AEs) were modeled; utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We used the societal perspective from Hong Kong and considered three times of local gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (i.e., US$138,649). We estimated the break-even cost of AA in case ADT + AA is not a cost-effective strategy under this WTP threshold. While considering the standard AA dosage (1000 mg) as the main analysis, we also examined the potential impact of the low-dose AA (250 mg) strategy.

RESULTS

Integrating simulations with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ADT + D returns 0.79 (median; 95% credible interval 0.56-0.97) QALY with an ICER of US$14,397/QALY ($7824-22,632) compared to ADT-alone. A head-to-head comparison indicates that ADT + AA further gains 0.79 (0.45-1.17) QALY but with an ICER of $361,439/QALY ($260,615-599,683) when compared to ADT + D. Considering three times of GDPpc as WTP threshold, ADT + D is more cost-effective in all simulations; while ADT + AA is more cost-effective than ADT + D only if the cost of AA is reduced by at least 63%. The low-dose AA (250 mg) strategy is potentially cost-effective when it generates equivalent efficacy as the standard dosage (1000 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT + D is therefore shown to be a more cost-effective strategy than ADT + AA in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients in developed economies. Addition of AA substantially improved QALY compared to D but at a significant cost.