Real-world treatment patterns and medical costs of prostate cancer patients in Switzerland - A claims data analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most prevalent cancer in men in Switzerland. However, evidence on the real-world health care use of PC patients is scarce. The aim of this study is to describe health care utilization, treatment patterns, and medical costs in PC patients over a period of five years (2014-2018).

METHOD

We used routinely collected longitudinal individual-level claims data from a major provider of mandatory health insurance in Switzerland. Due to the lack of diagnostic coding in the claims data, we identified treated PC patients based on the treatments received. We described health care utilization and treatment pathways for patients with localized and metastatic PC. Costs were calculated from a health care system perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 5591 PC patients met the inclusion criteria. Between 2014 and 2018, 1741 patients had outpatient radiotherapy for localized or metastatic PC and 1579 patients underwent radical prostatectomy. 3502 patients had an androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). 9.5% of these patients had a combination therapy with docetaxel, and 11.0% had a combination with abiraterone acetate. Docetaxel was the most commonly used chemotherapy (first-line; n = 413, 78.4% of all patients in chemotherapy). Total medical costs of PC in Switzerland were estimated at CHF 347 m (95% CI 323-372) in 2018.

CONCLUSION

Most PC patients in this study were identified based on the use of ADT. Medical costs of PC in Switzerland amounted to 0.45% of total health care spending in 2018. Treatment of metastatic PC accounted for about two thirds of spending.

Medication utilization evaluation of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer in Taiwan

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancer in males. Both the incidence and the mortality rates of prostate cancer show an increasing trend. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. The aim of our study was to show the epidemiology of prostate cancer and the proportion of patients utilizing ADT.This study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) and identified the patients who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer (International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10: C61) and followed up between Jan 1, 2008 and Dec 31, 2015. The ADT drugs used by prostate cancer patients were recorded: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists; GnRH antagonist; estrogen analogs and androgen receptor antagonist.A total of 25,233 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in 2008-2014 were enrolled. The utilization of ADT increased from more than 7,000 person-time in 2008 to more than 50,000 person-time in 2014. Cyproterone acetate was the most commonly used drug in 2008-2015, but its proportion of utilization, which was the highest in stage 2 cancer, dropped from 43% in 2008 to 15% in 2015. Bicalutamide was the second most used drug from 2008 to 2015, but its utilization was not different for different stages.The incidence rate of prostate cancer increased in the study period and medical expenditure also increased in ADT treatment. Health insurance benefits for various ADT drugs should be further evaluated.

Budget Impact of Enzalutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and second-leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. Prostate cancer poses a large economic burden, which increases with progression from localized to metastatic disease. Newly approved treatments for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) delay disease progression and reduce the risk of metastatic disease. Quantifying the potential budget impact of these new treatments is of interest to health care decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact of enzalutamide for the treatment of patients with nmCRPC in the United States over a 3-year time horizon.

METHODS

An Excel-based model was developed to estimate the budget impact to a U.S. health plan of enzalutamide, a second-generation antiandrogen, as an add-on to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of high-risk nmCRPC patients (prostate-specific antigen doubling time of ≤ 10 months). Comparators include apalutamide + ADT, bicalutamide + ADT, and ADT only. The analysis includes treatment costs for nmCRPC and for treatment after progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The treated population size was estimated from epidemiological data and literature. Dosing, duration of therapy, and adverse event rates were based on package inserts and pivotal studies. RED BOOK, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedules, and literature were used to obtain costs of drugs, adverse events, and health care visits. Market shares were estimated for each comparator before and after enzalutamide adoption. A 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed to quantify the impact of parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical 1-million-member plan with 3% annual growth, it was estimated that there would be approximately 19 eligible incident nmCRPC patients in year 1, increasing to 20 eligible incident patients in year 3. With an assumed market share of approximately 6% for enzalutamide in year 1, the budget impact would be $106,074 ($0.009 per member per month [PMPM]). With a 26% enzalutamide share in year 3, the budget impact would be $632,729 ($0.048 PMPM). Cumulative budget impact to the health plan over 3 years is estimated to be $1,082,095 ($0.028 PMPM). The increased cost of the treatment regimen is partly offset by reduced postprogression costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of nmCRPC patients with enzalutamide has a modest budget impact that is partly offset by delaying progression to mCRPC.

DISCLOSURES

This research was sponsored by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide. All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and maintained control over the final content. Schultz is employed by Astellas Pharma and owns stock in Gilead Sciences and Shire. O'Day and Sugarman are employees of Xcenda, which received consultancy fees from Astellas Pharma. Ramaswamy is employed by Pfizer. A synopsis of the current study was presented in poster format at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2019, in San Diego, CA, on March 25-28, 2019.

Total cost of care for castration-resistant prostate cancer in a commercially insured population and a medicare supplemental insured population

Background: The total cost of healthcare for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is an important component for assessing value of treatment options. The need for real-world evidence has increased with the introduction of oral targeted therapies for metastatic and nonmetastatic disease. In this study, we examined patient healthcare costs during periods of nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC) and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC).Methods: This retrospective cohort study captured data from claims in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental (Medigap) databases (1/1/2012-12/31/2016). Male patients (≥18 years) with ≥1 prostate cancer diagnosis, a subsequent metastatic diagnosis, and prescription claim for an mCRPC-indicated therapy (index date) were included. Patients were considered to have nmCRPC during the 12-month period prior to mCRPC if they had ≥1 claim for androgen deprivation therapy. Unadjusted all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and associated costs in 2016 USD per patient per year (PPPY) were determined for nmCRPC and mCRPC periods.Results: Patients included from the Commercial database (N = 449) had an average age of 59.4 ± 4.5 (standard deviation) years and a mean Quan Charlson Comorbidity Index (QCI) score of 2.8 ± 1.6. Among patients included from the Medigap database (N = 1,173), the mean age was 78.6 ± 7.2 years and mean QCI score was 3.3 ± 2.0. Across all healthcare resource types, HRU was approximately 1.5-2.5 times greater after a diagnosis of metastasis for both study populations. For commercially insured patients, total all-cause healthcare costs increased 6.2-fold from the nmCRPC to mCRPC periods ($29,192 to $182,156 PPPY). Likewise, among Medigap patients, total all-cause healthcare costs increased 5.1-fold from the nmCRPC to mCRPC periods ($27,549 to $139,847).Conclusions: In this study, the cost of care during 2012-2016 was substantially higher for mCRPC than nmCRPC, underscoring the value of interventions that may delay progression to metastases in high-risk individuals.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Androgen Deprivation Therapy to Radiation Therapy for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer from a U.S. Payer's Perspective

BACKGROUND

No study has investigated the cost and effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and other curative treatment therapies among the Medicare population, and no study has taken into consideration the long-term side effects associated with ADT.

OBJECTIVE

To examine if adding ADT was cost-effective when accounting for ADT-related long-term side effects in men with prostate cancer.

METHODS

For this cost-utility analysis, we used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to estimate and compare patient survival, costs from a health payer's perspective, and cost-effectiveness of 3 treatment modalities for advanced prostate cancer patients, including radiation therapy, radiation plus ADT, and active surveillance. We also estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by assigning appropriate health state utility values obtained from the literature for each phase of care and for long-term side effects. Propensity score matching was used to control for bias and confounding that were inherent to the observational study design.

RESULTS

Adding ADT to radiation therapy increased median patient survival by 0.71 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for radiation plus ADT versus radiation alone was $63,049 and $295,995 per mean life-year gained for radiation compared with active surveillance, respectively. Treatment-associated adverse side effects substantially reduced QALYs gained. Compared with radiation only, the incremental cost of radiation plus ADT was $127,900 per mean QALY and was nearly 80% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $210,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite ADT-associated costs and long-term side effects, compared with radiation alone, radiation plus ADT was cost-effective at $127,900 per QALY.

DISCLOSURES

This research was supported in part by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (grant nos. RP130051 and RP170668). The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Docetaxel in hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer; GENESIS-SEFH evaluation reporta

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common urogenital malignancy in older men and the second leading cause of death by cancer in men in Europe. Current therapeutic practice considers Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) as first line treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer at high-risk, either locally advanced or metastatic. ADT can be achieved through orchiectomy (surgical castration), luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, or through complete androgen blockade (LHRH agonist combined with an anti-androgen). Docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone is indicated for the treatment of patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. The CHAARTED and STAMPEDE clinical trials studied the effect of bringing forward the use of docetaxel added on to ADT in the context of hormone-sensitive patients. The CHAARTED clinical trial showed a significant increase in a variable with maximum relevance such as Overall Survival (OS), with a difference of 13.6 months between medians. There was also clinical benefit in the secondary variables: median time until castration-resistant disease or until clinical progression. In the STAMPEDE clinical trial, which included 39% of non-metastatic patients, a 10-month difference between medians was demonstrated in OS, and 17 months in the primary co-variable of Progression Free Survival. The most frequent adverse events were: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia, and general disorders such as asthenia, lethargy or fever. According to data from the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies, and the incremental cost of € 3 196.98 for adding on docetaxel to standard treatment, the estimated additional cost for each year of life gained is compatible with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between € 2 267.36 and € 3 851.78. In view of the efficacy and safety results, the proposed positioning is: to advance the use of docetaxel added to androgen deprivation therapy to first-line metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, regardless of metastatic volume, in those patients who meet the CHAARTED study criteria.

Managed care implications in castration-resistant prostate cancer

The management of prostate cancer (PrCa) and especially castration-resistant disease can be complex, challenging, and costly. Significant developments in the field of oncology have led to the further development of safe and effective therapies that are better targeted to particular tumor types and to individual patients. This is evident in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), where 5 new therapies proved to increase overall survival have debuted in just the past few years. With new therapies, however, come new treatment paradigms and new potential costs. It is vital that managed care clinicians and providers analyze the burden and the costs of cancer in the United States, especially those relating to PrCa and especially CRPC. This will allow a better understanding of how costs and issues relating to healthcare utilization affect the treatment of patients with CRPC, and impact individualized therapy and management decisions.

The relation between age and androgen deprivation therapy use among men in the Medicare population receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ncADT) is recommended for men with high-risk prostate cancer, but not low-risk cancer or short life expectancy. It is unclear whether the use of ncADT among older men in the community setting is aligned with the potential for clinical benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database to assess patterns of ncADT use among men diagnosed with prostate cancer during 2004–2007 who received radiation therapy. Men were stratified according to tumor risk groups and life expectancy. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with ncADT use within each risk group.

RESULTS

There were 10,686 men in the sample (mean age 74.2 years; 83.4% white). The use of ncADT was 80.7%, 54.1%, and 27.8% in the high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups, respectively. Men with a life expectancy<5 years had higher rates of ncADT use than men with a life expectancy≥10 years in all risk groups. Within each risk group, advancing age was associated with higher likelihood of receiving ncADT (odds ratio for men aged 80–84 compared to 67–69=1.93 (95% CI 1.37–2.70); 1.51 (95% CI 1.22–1.87); and 1.71 (95% CI 1.14–2.57) for high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

ncADT use is not consistent with guideline recommendations and is more frequent among men who are older, have shorter life expectancy, and are less likely to benefit from therapy.

[Monotherapy versus combined androgen blockade for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer]

In advanced/metastatic prostate cancer, a standard treatment is androgen deprivation therapy, either by surgical castration/LH-RH agonist monotherapy or by combined androgen blockade (CAB) with an antiandrogen. Clinical improvement and survival after CAB with an antiandrogen (instead of monotherapy) has been investigated for 20 years in many randomized clinical trials conducted primarily in Europe and America. However, there were both positive and negative results regarding the efficacy of CAB therapy. Therefore, CAB has neither been recommended as, nor has it become, a common therapy. But, in 2000, a meta-analysis-conducted Prostate Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (PCTCG)showed the survival benefits of CAB with nonsteroidal antiandrogen (nilutamide and flutamide). Moreover, the J-Cap phase III trial in Japan suggested that CAB with bicalutamide significantly prolongs survival, which has led to the placement of CAB as the treatment of choice for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer. Neverthless, the benefit of CAB compared to monotherapy remains controversial because of the many issues involving survival, safety profiles, QOL, and cost-effectiveness. In this article, we discuss the feasibility of CAB for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer by reviewing the results of RCT, and introduce novel treatment modalities involving androgen and the androgen receptor, which are still under development.

Outcomes of maximal androgen blockade in prostate cancer patients at a health area with type 2 reference hospital. Part 2. Quality of life: application of EORTC QLQ-PR25 instrument and global results. Quality-of-life adjusted survival. Pharmaceutical expenses and cost-utility

OBJECTIVES

To study quality of life in patients from the health area of Zamora diagnosed of prostate adenocarcinoma between 2000-2005 treated with maximal androgen blockade (MAB). To evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of the treatment.

METHODS

Basal, 12-month, 24-month and 36-month application of the health-related quality of life measurement instrument EORTC QLQ-C30 to the population sample (n= 111), as well as a control sample (n= 100). Comparative study of outcomes: between groups; between different time measurements in MAB patients; and inter-categories/ -intervals of some variables in patients with hormonal deprivation therapy (third year of follow-up). Analysis of health-related quality of life global outcomes (QLQ-C30 + QLQ-PR25). Description of the pharmaceutical expenses in androgen blockade patients. Cost-utility analysis by means of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) obtained using preference-based weighted index from the EUROQOL 5-D tool.

RESULTS

Hot flushes and sexual field worsening as mean expressions related to hormonal suppression. Treated patients had worse subjective perception of health condition and quality of life, in opposition to non-tumoral individuals. Positive bone scan, was a negative-influence factor on quality of life. Most patients undergoing MAB needed cost-utility figures of less than 5000 Euros/ QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a negative initial repercussion of MAB on quality of life, although tinged according to the different fields studied. The economic impact of this therapy on overall pharmaceutical expenses is relative.

Maximal androgen blockade for advanced prostate cancer

Maximal androgen blockade (MAB) refers to the combination of medical (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist) or surgical castration with an anti-androgen for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. A substantial body of basic research has improved our understanding of the interactions between the anti-androgens, the androgen receptor, and androgen response elements in the genome. Anti-androgens act by two primary mechanisms: inhibition of ligand (androgen) binding to the androgen receptor, and inhibition of androgen-independent activation of the receptor. The latter mechanism occurs via several pathways, including inhibiting nuclear co-activators, activating co-suppressors, and inhibiting transcription of a variety of androgen-regulated genes. It is more accurate to refer to these compounds as androgen-receptor antagonists, since they inhibit activation whether this is androgen-mediated or not. Within the class of non-steroidal anti-androgens, there is variation in the degree to which ligand-independent activation is inhibited. Over the last 25 years, approximately 30 clinical trials have addressed the benefit of MAB versus monotherapy. Most of these trials have evaluated flutamide or nilutamide. Several meta-analyses suggest a modest survival benefit of these drugs, amounting to an 8% mortality reduction at 5 years. Preclinical data and two randomized trials -- one historic and one current -- suggest that bicalutamide may be a more effective drug in this respect. This requires confirmation pending further maturity of the current trial, which is the only one directly comparing bicalutamide plus castration to castration alone. In prostate cancer patients at high risk for mortality (based on extent of disease or prostate-specific antigen kinetics), combination therapy with bicalutamide should be considered in preference to monotherapy.

Primary combined androgen blockade in localized disease and its mechanism

In spite of clinical practice guidelines such as NCI-PDQ - in which primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT) is not recommended as the primary treatment for localized prostate cancer - many patients have been treated with PADT. One of the reasons is that urologists themselves permit patients' desire because they know the effectiveness of PADT for some patients in their experiences. In this review we demonstrate basic mechanisms and the clinical efficacy of primary combined androgen blockade (PCAB) for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. Then we discuss which patients are candidates for PCAB, and show that more than 30% of low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancers could be controlled in the long term with only PCAB. Short-term or intermittent PADT could not be recommended because of the possibilities of changing the character of the cancer cells by incomplete androgen ablation. We propose algorithms for the treatment of localized prostate cancer not only in low- and intermediate-risk groups but also in the high-risk group.

Health Care Cost Associated With Prostate Cancer, Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Bone Complications

PURPOSE

We ascertained the health care costs of androgen deprivation therapy and related skeletal events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits Database, we identified cases with International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision codes indicating a diagnosis of prostate cancer who initiated androgen deprivation therapy between 1999 and 2002. The control group consisted of patients with prostate cancer with no androgen deprivation therapy use, matched by age, geographic region, insurance plan and index year. All had followup data for at least 36 months. The occurrence and cost of osteoporosis and any bone fracture were assessed using a propensity score matched sample.

RESULTS

Of the 8,577 eligible men with prostate cancer, 3,055 initiated androgen deprivation therapy and 5,522 did not. At the time of androgen deprivation therapy initiation those on androgen deprivation therapy had more severe comorbidity (3.1 vs 2.6, p <0.001) and proportionally more bone metastases (2.8% vs less than 0.6%, p <0.001) but no difference in fracture rate. After 3 years of followup the androgen deprivation therapy group experienced significantly more fractures (18.7% vs 14.6%, p <0.001). The mean unadjusted total cost of health care during the 36-month period was $48,350 per person for cases and $26,097 for controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Among men with prostate cancer, those on androgen deprivation therapy cost the health care system almost twice as much as those not on androgen deprivation therapy. After controlling for differences in health status, the majority of the excess cost is attributable to androgen deprivation therapy and then to a lesser extent, the fractures. These results suggest that the bone complications of osteoporosis and fractures in men on androgen deprivation therapy have important economic consequences.

Economic evaluation of different hormonal therapies for prostate cancer. Final results from the Quality of Life Antiandrogen Blockade Italian Observational Study (QuABIOS)

OBJECTIVE

The paper compares costs and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of different hormonal therapies (HTs) administered to 275 out of 471 patients with prostate cancer (PC) enrolled in the Quality of Life Antiandrogen Blockade Italian Observational Study (QuABIOS), who did not change HT during the study period.

METHODS

QALYs and costs related to monoHT witk cyproterone acetate (CYP) (42 patients); bicalutamide (BIC) (41 patients); LHRH-a (96 patients) and complete androgenic blockade (CAB) with: CYP (CYP CAB) (50 patients); BIC (BIC CAB) (46 patients) were compared via a cost-utility analysis (CUA) adopting the Italian National Healthcare Service (INHS) viewpoint.

RESULTS

As no statistical significant difference among the mean QALYs gained with the different HTs was detected (p = 0.116), CUA was replaced by a cost minimization analysis (CMA). However, the lowest and the highest mean QALYs gained per patient were registered for BIC CAB (0.59; 95% CI: 0.50; 0.68) and for for CYP (0.75; 95% CI: 0.68; 0.82), respectively. CYP was the least costly HT, reaching the lowest and the highest savings when compared to LHRH-a (-Euros 974.99; 95% CI: -Euros 1066.86; -Euros 883.12; p<0.0001) and to monoHT with BIC (-Euros 5887.81; 95% CI: -Euros 6143.99; -Euros 5631.64; p<0.0001). A nonparametric bootstrap sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base case CMA.

CONCLUSION

CYP is an interesting option for curbing the INHS drug expenditure for PC patients, with a trend towards increasing the mean number of QALYs gained.

Eliciting patient preferences for hormonal therapy options in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer

Treatment choices for metastatic prostate cancer are complex and can involve men balancing survival versus quality of life. The present study aims to elicit patient preferences with respect to the attributes of treatments for metastatic prostate cancer through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire. Men with recently diagnosed localized prostate cancer were asked to envisage that they had metastatic disease when completing a survey. As expected, men with prostate cancer placed considerable importance on gains in survival; however, avoiding side effects of treatment was also clearly important. Survival gains should be considered alongside side effects when discussing treatment options in metastatic disease.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of maximum androgen blockade for Japanese men with advanced prostate cancer]

Like other countries, Japan is facing the problem of rising medical costs associated with aging of the population, and therefore the cost-effectiveness of medicines has become increasingly important. Maximum androgen blockade (MAB) therapy, which is being widely used for advanced prostate cancer, has proved useful in clinical studies but it requires the additional use of an anti-androgen in contrast with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa) monotherapy, raising a concern about the increase medical costs. Thus, based on the results of a Japanese Phase III study of bicalutamide we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis. We constructed a Markov model to express the changes in prognosis following MAB therapy and LHRHa monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer and the cost and effectiveness (survival) were simulated. As a result, the expected costs of MAB therapy and LHRHa monotherapy were 5,240,000 yen and 3,660,000 yen, respectively, with expected survival durations of 7.45 and 6.44 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for MAB therapy was 1,560,000 yen/life-year saved, lower than the established threshold (6,000,000 yen/life-year saved), and a sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of this result. Therefore, the incremental cost of bicalutamide was considered worth it in view of the therapeutic effect, suggesting that MAB therapy is a highly cost-effective therapy.

Comparing results after surgery in patients with clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results in patients with unilateral cT3 prostate cancer treated with or with no neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (nADT), as nADT might have benefit in cT2 prostate cancer, but for cT3 tumours its use remains controversial, and it is unclear whether it can prevent or delay progression after surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1987 and 2004, 235 patients were assessed as having unilateral cT3 disease by a digital rectal examination; before surgery, 200 patients were not treated with nADT and 35 were. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rates.

RESULTS

With no nADT the biochemical progression-free survival (PFS) was 59.5%, the clinical PFS was 95.9%, the cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 98.7%, and overall survival was 95.9% at 5 years. With nADT, the biochemical PFS was 43.4%, clinical PFS was 77.6%, CSS was 88.7%, and overall survival was 79.8% at 5 years. The positive surgical margin rate with no nADT and with nADT was 33.5% and 57.1%, respectively, and the respective mean cancer volume was 6.6 mL and 4.0 mL.

CONCLUSION

nADT can decrease tumour size but does not reduce the positive surgical margin rate, nor improve the survival rate in unilateral cT3a disease. Because of side-effects and treatment costs, we do not advise nADT in patients with unilateral cT3a prostate cancer.

Long-term hormone therapy and radiation is cost-effective for patients with locally advanced prostate carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 92-02, after men received neoadjuvant hormone cytoreduction and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate carcinoma, they were randomized to receive either 2 years of long-term androgen-deprivation (LTAD) or no further treatment (short-term androgen-deprivation [STAD]). The specific objective of the current study was to determine whether LTAD was a cost-effective treatment for patients with locally advanced prostate carcinoma.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of LTAD was tested using a Markov model that was designed using proprietary software. The analysis took a payor's perspective. Unit costs were obtained by estimation using a global Medicare fee schedule. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3%. Distributions were sampled at random from the treatment utilities, transition probabilities, and costs using a second-order Monte Carlo simulation technique.

RESULTS

The expected mean cost was 32,564 dollars for LTAD compared with 33,039 dollars for STAD after accounting for the additional cost of salvage treatment for men who were treated with STAD. The mean number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for men who received LTAD was 4.13 QALYs compared with a mean of 3.68 QALYs for men who received STAD. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis showed a 91% probability that LTAD was cost-effective compared with STAD. Although overall survival was similar in the LTAD and STAD groups, the patients who received LTAD experienced gains in QALYs and had lower costs, because LTAD prevented biochemical failure and the necessitating salvage hormone therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis showed that LTAD was cost-effective for the entire population studied in RTOG trial 92-02.

Economic analysis of a phase III clinical trial evaluating the addition of total androgen suppression to radiation versus radiation alone for locally advanced prostate cancer (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 86-10)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding hormone therapy to radiation for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, using a Monte Carlo simulation of a Markov Model.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 86-10 randomized patients to receive radiation therapy (RT) alone or RT plus total androgen suppression (RTHormones) 2 months before and during RT for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. A Markov model was designed with Data Pro (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA). The analysis took a payer's perspective. Transition probabilities from one state of health (i.e., with no disease progression or with hormone-responsive metastatic disease) to another were calculated from published rates pertaining to RTOG 86-10. Patients remained in one state of health for 1 year. Utility values for each health state and treatment were obtained from the literature. Distributions were sampled at random from the treatment utilities according to a second-order Monte Carlo simulation technique.

RESULTS

The mean expected cost for the RT-only treatments was 29,240 dollars (range, 29,138-29,403 dollars). The mean effectiveness for the RT-only treatment was 5.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (range, 5.47-5.50). The mean expected cost for RTHormones was 31,286 dollars (range, 31,058-31,555 dollars). The mean effectiveness was 6.43 QALYs (range, 6.42-6.44). Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed RTHormones to be within the range of cost-effectiveness at 2,153 dollars/QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis resulted in a >80% probability that RTHormones is cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that adding hormonal treatment to RT improves health outcomes at a cost that is within the acceptable cost-effectiveness range.

Is combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide cost-effective compared with combined androgen blockade with flutamide?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of combined androgen blockade (CAB) with bicalutamide versus CAB with flutamide in men with Stage D2 prostate cancer. Both bicalutamide and flutamide are commonly used in CAB for prostate cancer. Although the cost of bicalutamide is more than that of flutamide, it is important that the efficacy, quality of life, and side effects are also considered when determining whether CAB with bicalutamide is a cost-effective option.

METHODS

A decision model was created to compare treatment strategies. Survival and side-effect information was based on a randomized trial that directly compared bicalutamide and flutamide. The costs and quality-of-life effects related to therapy were determined from published sources.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained for bicalutamide versus flutamide was 22,000 dollars and 16,000 dollars at 5 and 10 years, respectively. If a quality adjustment was not included, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CAB with bicalutamide compared with CAB with flutamide was even more favorable (20,000 dollars/life year gained at 5 years). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness estimates were most sensitive to drug costs and survival (baseline survival was not significantly different between therapies). Multi-way uncertainty analysis revealed that the median value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at 5 years was 13,637 dollars/quality-adjusted life year when all the parameters were varied over a clinically reasonable range.

CONCLUSIONS

Bicalutamide is cost-effective compared with flutamide when used for androgen blockade as part of CAB for men with advanced prostate cancer.

[Usefulness and positioning of MAB therapy for prostate cancer]

Prostate cancer is a relatively slow-growing disease compared to other cancers, and the patients tend to be older. Taking into consideration therefore life expectancy of the patients and risks of recurrence and progression, conservative treatments (mainly hormonal therapy) are often applied for early cases, as well as radical treatments (total prostatectomy and radiotherapy). Particularly in Japan, many patients start treatment with hormonal therapy alone, in both early and advanced cases. Hence, Maximal Androgen Blockade (MAB) therapy, in which surgical or medical castration (such as LH-RH agonist treatment) and anti-androgen treatment are combined, is widely exercised with the hope to enhance treatment effects. The usefulness of MAB therapy has been assessed in a number of randomized comparative studies, covering mainly metastatic cases. The efficacy of the therapy with the use of flutamide as non-steroidal anti-androgen has been confirmed in some of the studies, although the magnitude of the efficacy cannot be said major. In Phase III clinical studies of MAB therapy with bicalutamide being conducted in Japan for patients in Stages C and D, however, the patient group treated with MAB therapy demonstrated more favorable results compared to the group treated with LH-RH agonist alone, particularly in terms of time to progression (TTP) of the patients in Stage C. These are relatively new findings on the usefulness and adaptability of MAB therapy. In this Panel Discussion, views and experiences are exchanged on a wide variety of topics covering the real usefulness of MAB therapy, its adaptability, possible outcomes of hormonal therapy in early cases, and the future of MAB therapy, taking into account the prevailing opinions and current practices on prostate cancer in both the United States and Japan.

The cost-effectiveness of combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide and luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist in men with metastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Combined androgen blockade therapy (CAB) has been shown to have a small survival advantage over luteinizing hormone releasing hormone LH-RH agonists (LH-RHa) alone in men with metastatic prostate cancer. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAB with bicalutamide and LH-RH agonist therapy to LH-RH agonist therapy alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A macro-simulation model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 interventions for stage D2 prostate cancer, 1) CAB with bicalutamide 50 mg per day and monthly dosing of an LH-RHa or 2) monthly LH-RH agonist therapy. Cost and outcomes are tabulated in 5 and 10-year time horizons. Model assumptions were taken from the published literature. Appropriate 1-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

At 5 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAB, when compared with LH-RHa monotherapy, was US dollars 33,677 per quality-adjusted life-year. In other words, for every additional quality-adjusted life year that a patient lived because he received CAB, it cost US dollars 33,677. At 10 years the ICER for CAB was US dollars 20,053 (well within the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold). If quality adjustment was not included, the ICER for CAB was even more favorable (US dollars 20,489 at 5 years and US dollars 13,313 at 10 years). The model was most sensitive to the estimates of effectiveness (survival) of LH-RHa therapy alone and CAB therapy. The model was also fairly sensitive to the quality of life effect of having late stage prostate cancer and the cost of bicalutamide.

CONCLUSIONS

CAB with bicalutamide is cost-effective when compared with LH-RH monotherapy in men with stage D2 prostate cancer.

An oncology perspective on the benefits and cost of combined androgen blockade in advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To provide context in oncology for the significance of the benefits and cost of combined androgen blockade (CAB) in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

Canadian drug costs for the survival benefit with CAB in advanced prostate cancer were compared with the costs of benefit with new treatments in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer, and metastatic breast cancer. Clinical toxicities were also compared.

RESULTS

The survival benefit with CAB in advanced prostate cancer appears to be approximately 3 months. The survival benefit with the addition of vinorelbine to cisplatin for the treatment of advanced NSCLC is approximately 2 months, and the survival benefit with the addition of irinotecan to fluorouracil (and leucovorin) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer is approximately 2 to 3 months. The survival benefit with anastrozole or exemestane in advanced breast cancer, or with the addition of trastuzumab to standard chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), is approximately 4 to 5 months. The calculated cost per month of survival benefit with bicalutamide in CAB for prostate cancer is 437 US dollars to 1107 US dollars. The cost per month of survival benefit with vinorelbine for NSCLC is 1241 US dollars and with irinotecan for colorectal cancer is 6812 to 11,214 US dollars. The calculated cost per month of survival benefit with anastrozole for breast cancer is 170 US dollars, for exemestane is 185 US dollars, and the cost per month with the addition of trastuzumab is 5230 US dollars. Vinorelbine and irinotecan are associated with severe grade 3 or 4 clinical toxicities, and an increased frequency of heart failure has been observed when trastuzumab is added to anthracyclines. Anastrozole, exemestane and nonsteroidal antiandrogens are associated with mild to moderate side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages offered by CAB (including the cost per month of survival benefit and minimal associated clinical toxicities) are comparable to the reported advantages of new treatments for other common cancers such as NSCLC, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer.

[Cost-utility analysis of androgen ablation therapy in metastatic prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

As Bayoumi, et al pointed out in their article (J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000, vol 92, p 1731), it is evident that treatment of prostate cancer with Luteinizing Hormone Releasing Hormone (LHRH) analogue costs more than treatment by bilateral orchiectomy. However, patients with metastatic prostate cancer are usually treated with LHRH analogue. Does this mean that urologist choose higher cost and less Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) treatment? Therefore, we urologists should re-analyze their conclusion whether the treatment with LHRH analogue is really strictly dominated (high cost and low effect).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We performed a cost-utility analysis using the Markov model based on a formal meta-analysis and literature review, using the same assumptions as Bayoumi, et al, from the perspective of insurer. The base case was assumed to be a 65-year-old man with symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer. The model used time horizon of 10 years. Five androgen ablation therapies were evaluated as first-line therapy: diethylstilbestrol diphosphate (DES), orchiectomy, orchiectomy + nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA), LHRH analogue and LHRH analogue + NSAA. Outcome measures were QALY, lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

While DES was the least expensive therapy with the lowest QALY, LHRH analogue monotherapy was the second most expensive therapy with the longest QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios relative to DES of LHRH (yen 4,288,295/QALY) was cheaper than that of orchiectomy when quality of life (QOL) weight of orchiectomy was assumed to be 0.94 relative to that of LHRH analogue. Contrarily, LHRH analogue + NSAA is excluded with strict dominance and Orchiectomy + NSAA is excluded with extended dominance.

CONCLUSION

Although LHRH analogue costs higher than orchiectomy, LHRH analogue can offer longer QALY than orchiectomy. Cost/QALY of LHRH analogue relative to DES is yen 4,288,295/QALY, which we considered to represent a good value. Choice of therapy depends on the patient's preference.

Quality of life and economic considerations in the management of prostate cancer

The purpose of this article was to provide an overview of the morbidity and mortality of prostate cancer, QOL issues and the economic impact of the disease. We searched Medline (from 1990 onwards) for all studies dealing with prostate cancer epidemiology, treatment, screening and staging, and critically reviewed the most relevant articles, focusing on pharmacoeconomic issues. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. In the US, new estimated cases of prostate cancer represented 14.8% of all new cancer cases for 2000, with estimated deaths from prostate cancer comprising 5.8% of all deaths from cancer. Current options for prostate cancer management include radical prostatectomy, cryosurgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy and watchful waiting. Many of the long-term effects of treatment, such as urinary incontinence, impotence and radiation-induced proctitis, have a large impact on patients' quality of life and, in some patients, may offset the clinical benefits. Regulatory bodies and managed care organisations are assigning increasing importance to the evaluation of QOL benefits as an independent clinical endpoint and a measure of patient satisfaction. Several screening programmes for early detection of prostate cancer, mostly based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement or digital rectal examination, have been proposed, but their routine implementation in all asymptomatic elderly men has been questioned. There is still no definite proof that patient outcomes are improved by extensive PSA screening. Furthermore, the total cost of a screening programme is difficult to define since it extends well beyond the initial test. Several instruments are used for QOL assessment in prostate cancer, some of which have been specifically developed for, or adapted to, patients with this disease, such as the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy (FACT) tool, Prostate Cancer Treatment Outcome Questionnaire (PCTO-Q) and Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI). More than 50% of treatment costs for prostate cancer are accrued during the patient's last year of life, and total initial care costs decrease with increasing age. In the US, initial average inpatient costs were estimated at $US 2253, in 1995, for men aged > or =80 years, compared with $US 4540 for men aged 35-64 years. In recent years, treatments based on combined modalities (i.e. radiotherapy/prostatectomy plus hormonal therapies) have emerged. Although cost-effectiveness analyses of various treatment options have been attempted, the strength of their conclusions appears to be limited by the lack of homogeneous literature data on the effects of such interventions on survival and morbidity.

Economical data and advanced prostate carcinoma: do we need new guidelines for decision making?

Based on epidemiological data of incidence, estimated prevalence of advanced prostate carcinoma in Germany, and the cost of androgen deprivation of different regimens were determined in a study model. We analyzed data, published by the Tumor Registry of Munich, which indicate that from 3,838 patients with carcinomas of the prostate, 38% has been treated exclusively with hormone suppression therapy, 14% of patients had undergone a combined radiation therapy and hormone suppression therapy and 9% underwent combined surgical therapy and hormone suppression therapy. The mean survival time of patients treated with medical therapy alone, for patients treated with combined radiation therapy and medical therapy were 60, 24, and 120 months, respectively. The cost for orchiectomy was estimated as $1,072, and for LH-RH therapy as $224/month. We estimated an incidence of 17,700 (per year) and a prevalence of 115,000 patients with advanced prostate cancer for Germany. Provided all patients received LH-RH treatment a total cost of $308,000,000/year would arise. Provided, all patients underwent surgery a total cost of $19,000.000/year would arise. If all patients received LH-RH agonists, the treatment would amount to $16,944 per patient, independently of the prognostic group; and for surgery $1,072 per patient would arise. Limited health care budgets mandate critical determination and evaluation of costs to provide a component for the complex decision making process. However, they must be complimented by validated data of quality of life, which can than be a basis for new guidelines of decision making.

Medical versus surgical androgen suppression therapy for prostate cancer: a 10-year longitudinal cost study

PURPOSE

We provide a relative cost comparison of medical versus surgical androgen suppressive therapy for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comparison is based on a cohort of 96 patients who began androgen suppressive therapy for prostate cancer between 1988 and 1990. Patients were followed until death or the end point of study in June 2000 at which time 15% were alive. Current Medicare orchiectomy reimbursements were compared to 1999 wholesale drug costs.

RESULTS

For an individual patient the cost of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonist treatment surpassed the cost of surgery at less than 4.2 to 5.3 months, and for combined androgen blockade (LH-RH agonists and nonsteroidal antiandrogens) at less than 2.7 to 3.4 months. For 5 (5.2%) patients on combined androgen blockade and 6 (6.3%) on LH-RH agonists alone, medical therapy would have had a cost advantage over bilateral orchiectomy. For the androgen suppression cohort the cost of LH-RH agonist treatment was 10.7 to 13.5 times and combined androgen blockade was 17.3 to 20.9 times the cost of bilateral orchiectomy. Urology resource use comparisons are provided. These findings significantly underestimate the cost advantage of surgery. A seventh of the patients were alive at study end point, and prostate specific antigen induced stage shifting and changes in practice patterns resulted in earlier and more frequent androgen suppressive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for patients with short anticipated survivals current medical androgen suppressive treatment options are more costly than bilateral orchiectomy. There is a need for a cost comparable medical option to orchiectomy.

Cost-effectiveness of androgen suppression therapies in advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The costs and side effects of several antiandrogen therapies for advanced prostate cancer differ substantially. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of antiandrogen therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model based on a formal meta-analysis and literature review. The base case was assumed to be a 65-year-old man with a clinically evident, local recurrence of prostate cancer. The model used a societal perspective and a time horizon of 20 years. Six androgen suppression strategies were evaluated: diethylstilbestrol (DES), orchiectomy, a nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA), a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist, and combinations of an NSAA with an LHRH agonist or orchiectomy. Outcome measures were survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

DES, the least expensive therapy, had a discounted lifetime cost of $3600 and the lowest quality-adjusted survival, 4.6 QALYs. At a cost of $7000, orchiectomy was associated with 5.1 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7500/QALY relative to DES. All other strategies-LHRH agonists, NSAA, and both combined androgen blockade strategies-had higher costs and lower quality-adjusted survival than orchiectomy. These results were sensitive to the quality of life associated with orchiectomy and the efficacy of combined androgen blockade, and they changed little when prostate-specific antigen results were used to guide therapy. Under a wide range of other assumptions, the cost-effectiveness of orchiectomy relative to DES was consistently less than $20 000/QALY. Androgen suppression therapies were most cost-effective if initiated after patients became symptomatic from prostate metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

For men who accept it, orchiectomy is likely to be the most cost-effective androgen suppression strategy. Combined androgen blockade is the least economically attractive option, yielding small health benefits at high relative costs.

The cost value of medical versus surgical hormonal therapy for metastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The cost of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone analogue and antiandrogen for prostate cancer is being scrutinized by the Health Care Finance Administration and other insurers. We compared the discounted present value cost of medical hormonal therapy to that of orchiectomy as well as the value created by these treatments from the insurer and patient perspectives.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a telephone survey of 42 patients receiving hormonal therapy to estimate the value created by medical versus surgical castration from the patient perspective. The cost of medical hormonal therapy was discounted back to the present value and compared with the cost of bilateral orchiectomy.

RESULTS

The total cost of bilateral orchiectomy was $2,022, while the discounted present value cost using the average wholesale price for 30 months of medical hormonal therapy was $13,620. Therefore, medical hormonal therapy costs $11,598 more than orchiectomy ($13,620 - $2,022). A discounted payment of $386 per month for 30 months is necessary to recoup the $11,598 difference. All surveyed patients on medical hormonal therapy stated that avoiding orchiectomy was worth $386 per month and it was an appropriate insurer expense. If patients paid $386 per month out-of-pocket, 22 of the 42 (52%) would pay the additional monthly expense, while 20 (48%) indicated that they could not afford the additional expense.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that medical hormonal therapy costs significantly more than bilateral orchiectomy but creates positive value for men with prostate cancer by enabling them to avoid orchiectomy.

The cost-effectiveness of isotretinoin in the treatment of acne. Part 3. A cost-minimisation pharmaco-economic model

OBJECTIVES

The cost-effectiveness of systemic isotretinoin therapy in the treatment of moderate to severe acne was assessed in a comparative cost-minimisation analysis. Systemic isotretinoin at the recommended daily dose of 1 mg/kg (cumulative dose of 120 mg/kg) was compared with: (i) oral antibiotics taken as chronic medication; (ii) a combination of chronic oral antibiotics and anti-androgen therapy; and (iii) isotretinoin prescribed only after two failed courses of oral antibiotics, as per South African guidelines. The perspective taken was that of the funder of health care, and the resources used were funder charges as a proxy for costs.

METHODOLOGY

Statistical and epidemiological data as well as relevant costs from the previously reported meta-analysis and profiling study for acne therapy were used as the clinical basis for the construction of a cost-minimisation model. Additional costs were sourced from published pharmaceutical retail prices and professional rates. The South African treatment guidelines were used to define the frequencies associated with physician visits and pathology testing. Standard statistical methods were applied, as appropriate. From the above, a modified Markov process was used to model the costs associated with the four comparator treatment regimens over a period of 120 months. Suitable clinical and economic endpoints were defined so that comparison could be made between regimens.

RESULTS

Assuming a relapse rate of 21.45%, it was found that isotretinoin therapy compares favourably with the other regimens. After 50 and 35 months, systemic isotretinoin cumulative costs were less than those incurred in oral antibiotic and oral antibiotic/anti-androgen therapy, respectively. For the stepped therapy of oral antibiotics followed by systemic isotretinoin, these break-even periods were 56 and 39 months, respectively. The cost per successfully treated patient receiving isotretinoin was R8941. This compares well with the cost for those patients receiving chronic oral antibiotics, which after 5 years amounted to R10 428 per patient. Sensitivity analyses proved these findings to be robust to variations in the isotretinoin relapse rate, and the cost of oral antibiotic therapy and the concomitant use of topical therapies.

CONCLUSION

From the cost-minimisation model it is clear that where systemic isotretinoin is clinically indicated, the sooner such therapy is initiated the more cost-effective the outcome will be. If isotretinoin is prescribed on diagnosis of moderate to severe acne, then the cost of treatment is significantly reduced in the long term when compared with standard chronic oral antibiotic therapy.

Relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods of androgen suppression in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

With 184,500 new cases and 39,200 deaths anticipated in 1998, prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer in cancer mortality for men. This report is a systematic review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials on the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies for androgen suppression as treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Three key issues are addressed: (1) the relative effectiveness of the available methods for monotherapy (orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists, and antiandrogens), (2) the effectiveness of combined androgen blockade compared to monotherapy, and (3) the effectiveness of immediate androgen suppression compared to androgen suppression deferred until clinical progression. Outcomes of interest are overall, cancer-specific, and progression-free survival; time to treatment failure; adverse effects; and quality of life. Two supplementary analyses were conducted for each key question: (1) meta-analysis of overall survival at 2 years (questions 1 and 2) and 5 years (questions 2 and 3), and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and EMBASE databases were searched from 1966 to March 1998, and Current Contents to August 24, 1998, for the terms: leuprolide (Lupron); goserelin (Zoladex); buserelin (Suprefact); flutamide (Eulexin); nilutamide (Anandron, Nilandron); bicalutamide (Casodex); cyproterone acetate (Androcur); diethylstilbestrol (DES); and orchiectomy (castration, orchidectomy). The search was then limited to human studies indexed under the MeSH term "prostatic neoplasms" and by the UK Cochrane Center search strategy for randomized controlled trials. Total yield was 1,477 references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We Reports of efficacy outcomes were limited to randomized controlled trials. Phase II studies that reported on withdrawals from therapy and all studies reporting on quality of life were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The systematic review used a prospectively designed protocol conducted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. The meta-analysis combined data on overall survival using a random effects model. The cost-effectiveness analysis used a decision analysis model of advanced prostate cancer with health states and transitions derived from the literature and estimates of effectiveness derived from the meta-analysis. The cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted from a societal perspective, consistent with the guidelines of the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

MAIN RESULTS

Survival after treatment with an LHRH agonist is equivalent to survival after orchiectomy. The available LHRH agonists are equally effective, and no LHRH agonist is superior to the other when adverse effects are considered. Survival may be somewhat lower with use of a nonsteroidal antiandrogen. There is no statistically significant difference in survival at 2 years between patients treated with combined androgen blockade or monotherapy. Meta-analysis of the limited data available shows a statistically significant difference in survival at 5 years that favors combined androgen blockade. However, the magnitude of this difference is of questionable clinical significance. For the subgroup of patients with good prognosis, there is no statistically significant difference in survival. Adverse effects leading to withdrawal from therapy occurred more often with combined androgen blockade. No evidence is yet available from randomized controlled trials of androgen suppression initiated at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rise after definitive therapy for clinically localized disease. For patients who are newly diagnosed with locally advanced or asymptomatic metastatic disease, the evidence is insufficient to determine whether primary androgen suppression initiated at diagnosis improves outcomes. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Cancer treatment in Sweden--costs of drugs, inpatient and outpatient care from 1985 to 1996 and cost effectiveness of new drugs

This study was carried out to investigate the direct costs for treatment of patients with cancer from 1985 to 1996 in Sweden, and to examine health economic effects of changes in treatment pattern. Material for the study was collected from official statistics and from published health economic evaluations of cancer treatment. Costs for inpatient care decreased during the period, while costs for outpatient care and drugs increased. In total, the direct health care costs for cancer treatment decreased from 1985 to 1996. New drugs registered on the market are often more expensive than the drugs they replace. From a health economic perspective it is not clear, however, that higher drug costs necessarily increase total costs. Further health economic research is needed because many treatment alternatives have not yet been evaluated, and furthermore, because a treatment option can be cost effective in one specific indication but not in another.

A new look at an old option in the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: hormone therapy as an alternative to watchful waiting

Watchful waiting is an attractive option in the management of early-stage, low-grade prostate cancer because of the high financial costs and complication risks associated with surgery and radiotherapy. Despite the drawbacks of current local therapy, neither treatment can demonstrate a discernible survival benefit over observation alone. Even the slowest progressing disease, however, can potentially develop into a deadly medical problem. As a result, physicians and patients frequently have difficulty accepting untreated cancer. Therefore, we propose that another option be considered in cases of prostate cancer that would otherwise qualify for observation alone: the use of two oral hormonal agents, flutamide and finasteride, to achieve complete androgen blockade. Some evidence exists which suggests that such therapy may improve symptom-free survival, and perhaps overall survival as well. This 'aggressive' form of 'conservative' therapy may satisfy patient concerns that are not adequately addressed by current forms of therapy.

Cost-effective models for flutamide for prostate carcinoma patients: are they helpful to policy makers?

BACKGROUND

More than 50,000 male patients received hormonal therapy for metastatic prostate carcinoma in 1995. Nonsteroidal antiandrogens, such as flutamide, when used in conjunction with castration, are effective in prolonging the time to progression of disease and survival. Only one-third of newly diagnosed patients with metastatic prostate carcinoma receive flutamide. Physicians may be reluctant to prescribe flutamide because of quality of life, toxicity, and cost considerations.

METHODS

Physician focus groups evaluated quality of life factors for metastatic prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Using quality of life estimates with the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) 0036 clinical trial results, our revised model of flutamide use predicted that, for minimal disease, survival increased by 4.33 quality adjusted months (QAMs) at an incremental cost of $25,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) saved and for severe disease, survival increased by 4.11 QAM at a cost of $18,000 per QALY saved. However, if quality of life estimates are used in conjunction with the Prostate Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (PCTCG) meta-analysis estimates, survival increased by 2.1 QAM at an incremental cost of $41,000 per QALY saved for persons with severe disease and increased by 2.6 QAM at an incremental cost of $53,700 per QALY saved for persons with minimal disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Using NCI 0036 trial data, flutamide has an incremental cost-effectiveness more favorable than most therapies, while estimates based on the PCTCG found a less favorable outcome for the drug. Concerns about out-of-pocket expenditures and efficacy limit flutamide utilization; quality of life considerations are less cogent.

The cost and availability of therapeutic options in advanced prostatic carcinoma in Turkey

Advanced prostatic carcinoma may be treated by a variety of methods of endocrine manipulation which affect the production of androgens. This can either be done by bilateral orchiectomy or by a number of drugs. Orchiectomy has two advantages: low cost and being a once-only procedure. This report outlines the costs of various methods of hormonal treatment and compares them with each other in Turkey.