A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Is Blepharoplasty Cost-effective? Utility Analysis of Dermatochalasis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional prospective study measured utility values of upper eyelid dermatochalasis to quantify its impact on quality of life and assess cost-effectiveness of upper blepharoplasty.

METHODS

Utility of dermatochalasis was assessed using the standard reference gamble and time trade-off methods, with dual anchor points of perfect eye function and perfect health. The utility value obtained was used to create a Markov model and run a cost-effectiveness analysis of blepharoplasty as a treatment for dermatochalasis while utilizing the societal perspective.

RESULTS

One hundred three patients with dermatochalasis recruited from an urban outpatient ophthalmology clinic completed the utility survey. The authors determined utility values for dermatochalasis ranging from 0.74 to 0.92 depending on the measurement method (standard reference gamble/time trade-off) and anchor points. The cost-effectiveness analysis yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,146 per quality-adjusted life year, well under the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that blepharoplasty would be cost-effective in 88.1% of cases at this willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Dermatochalasis has an impact on quality of life that is significantly associated with level of perceived functional impairment. Rising health care costs have underscored the importance of providing value-based treatment to patients, and the results of this study suggest that blepharoplasty is a cost-effective treatment option for symptomatic bilateral upper eyelid dermatochalasis.

Japanese clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer 2023

This fourth edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2023 is compiled. It was revised under the leadership of the Japanese Urological Association, with members selected from multiple academic societies and related organizations (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology, the Department of EBM and guidelines, Japan Council for Quality Health Care (Minds), Japanese Society of Pathology, and the patient group (NPO Prostate Cancer Patients Association)), in accordance with the Minds Manual for Guideline Development (2020 ver. 3.0). The most important feature of this revision is the adoption of systematic reviews (SRs) in determining recommendations for 14 clinical questions (CQs). Qualitative SRs for these questions were conducted, and the final recommendations were made based on the results through the votes of 24 members of the guideline development group. Five algorithms based on these results were also created. Contents not covered by the SRs, which are considered textbook material, have been described in the general statement. In the general statement, a literature search for 14 areas was conducted; then, based on the general statement and CQs of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2016, the findings revealed after the 2016 guidelines were mainly described. This article provides an overview of these guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rezvilutamide versus bicalutamide in the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

The economic implications of combining rezvilutamide with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remain uncertain, despite the observed survival advantages compared with bicalutamide plus ADT. Therefore, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of rezvilutamide plus ADT as the first-line treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rezvilutamide combined with ADT. Clinical data were obtained from the CHART trial. Costs and utility values were obtained from local estimate and published literature. Only direct medical costs were included in the model.

INTERVENTIONS

Rezvilutamide was administered at 240 mg daily or bicalutamide at 50 mg daily until progression.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outputs of the model included costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which were used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to explore model uncertainties.

RESULTS

The rezvilutamide group showed an expected gain of 2.28 QALYs and an incremental cost of US$60 758.82 compared with the bicalutamide group. The ICER for rezvilutamide group versus bicalutamide group was US$26 656.94 per QALY. The variables with the greatest impact on the model results were the utility for progression-free survival state and the price of rezvilutamide. PSA revealed that rezvilutamide group had 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$35707.5 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Rezvilutamide in combination with ADT is more cost-effective compared with bicalutamide plus ADT as the first-line treatment of mHSPC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVE

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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

Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data

Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011-2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE's £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP's indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup.

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).