Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 1187–1194 | Cite as

Sipuleucel-T for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; An Evidence Review Group Perspective

  • Emma L. Simpson
  • Sarah Davis
  • Praveen Thokala
  • Penny R. Breeze
  • Peter Bryden
  • Ruth Wong
Review Article

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Dendreon, the company manufacturing sipuleucel-T, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of sipuleucel-T for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer patients in whom chemotherapy is not yet clinically indicated, as part of NICE’s single technology appraisal process. The comparator was abiraterone acetate (AA) or best supportive care (BSC). The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company submission (CS), ERG review, and subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of sipuleucel-T based upon the CS. Clinical-effectiveness data relevant to the decision problem were taken from three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sipuleucel-T and a placebo (PBO) comparator of antigen-presenting cells (APC) being re-infused (APC-PBO) (D9901, D9902A and D9902B), and one RCT (COU-AA-302) of AA plus prednisone vs. PBO plus prednisone. Two trials reported a significant advantage for sipuleucel-T in median overall survival compared with APC-PBO: for trial D9901, an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.76) p < 0.002; for D9902B, adjusted HR 0.78 (95 % CI 0.61, 0.98) p = 0.03. There was no significant difference between groups in D9902A, unadjusted HR 0.79 (95 % CI 0.48, 1.28) p = 0.331. Sipuleucel-T and APC-PBO groups did not differ significantly in time to disease progression, in any of the three RCTs. Most adverse events developed within 1 day of the infusion, and resolved within 2 days. The CS included an indirect comparison of sipuleucel-T (D9902B) and AA plus prednisone (COU-AA-302). As trials differed in prior use of chemotherapy, an analysis of only chemotherapy-naïve patients was included, in which the overall survival for sipuleucel-T and AA was not significantly different, HR 0.94 (95 % CI 0.69, 1.28) p = 0.699. The ERG had several concerns regarding the data and assumptions incorporated within the company’s cost-effectiveness analyses and conducted exploratory analyses to quantify the impact of making alternative assumptions or using alternative data inputs. The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sipuleucel-T vs. BSC when using the ERG’s preferred data and assumptions was £108,585 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the whole licensed population and £61,204/QALY in the subgroup with low prostate-specific antigen at baseline. The ERG also conducted an incremental analysis comparing sipuleucel-T with both AA and BSC in the chemotherapy-naïve subgroup. Sipuleucel-T had a deterministic ICER of £111,682/QALY in this subgroup, when using the ERG’s preferred assumptions, and AA was extendedly dominated. The ERG also concluded that estimates of costs and benefits for AA should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the indirect comparison. The AC noted that the ICER for sipuleucel-T was well above the range usually considered cost effective, and did not recommend sipuleucel-T for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer.

Keywords

Overall Survival Docetaxel Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Good Supportive Care Evidence Review Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

All authors have commented on the submitted manuscript and have given their approval for the final version to be published. ELS reviewed the clinical-effectiveness evidence, SD, PT and PRB reviewed the cost-effectiveness evidence and PB reviewed statistical analyses. ELS acted as the overall guarantor for the manuscript.

The authors wish to thank Prof. Noel Clarke, Professor of Urological Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, and Mr. Derek J. Rosario, Consultant Urologist, Department of Oncology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, for providing clinical advice. The authors also wish to thank Andrea Shippam (Programme Administrator, ScHARR) for her help in preparing and formatting the report.

This summary has not been externally peer reviewed by PharmacoEconomics.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project number 12/56/01 STA). See the HTA programme website for further project information (http://www.hta.ac.uk). This summary of the ERG report was compiled after NICE issued the Final Appraisal Determination. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NICE or the Department of Health.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Simpson, Ms. Davis, Dr. Thokala, Dr. Breeze, Mr. Bryden and Dr. Wong declare no potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dendreon Corporation. Submission to NICE: single technology appraisal (STA) sipuleucel-T for the treatment of asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic (non-visceral) metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Company submission. 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Public Assessment Report: Provenge. EMA/440011/2013. European Medicines Agency; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heidenreich A, Bastian P, Bellmunt J. Guidelines on prostate cancer. http://www.uroweb.org/. 2013. Accessed 31 Mar 2013.
  5. 5.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guidelines [CG175] Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Lodnon: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Single technology appraisal (STA): abiraterone acetate (Zytiga) for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in men not previously treated with chemotherapy. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Final appraisal determination sipuleucel-T for treating asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer. [ID573]. 2015. (10-2-2015).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Small EJ, Schellhammer PF, Higano CS, Redfern CH, Nemunaitis JJ, Valone FH, et al. Placebo-controlled phase III trial of immunologic therapy with sipuleucel-T (APC8015) in patients with metastatic, asymptomatic hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(19):3089–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frohlich MW. Sipuleucel-T for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Semin Oncol. 2012;39(3):245–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, Berger ER, Small EJ, Penson DF, et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(5):411–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rathkopf DE, Smith MR, de Bono JS, et al. Updated interim efficacy analysis and long-term safety of abiraterone acetate in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients without prior chemotherapy (COU-AA-302). Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):815–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall SJ, Klotz L, Pantuck AJ, George DJ, Whitmore JB, Frohlich MW, et al. Integrated safety data from 4 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of autologous cellular immunotherapy with sipuleucel-T in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;186(3):877–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SM, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(3):288–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sandblom G, Carlsson P, Sennfalt K, Varenhorst E. A population-based study of pain and quality of life during the year before death in men with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(6):1163–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guest JF, Ruiz FJ, Greener MJ, Trotman IF. Palliative care treatment patterns and associated costs of healthcare resource use for specific advanced cancer patients in the UK. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006;15(1):65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma L. Simpson
    • 1
  • Sarah Davis
    • 1
  • Praveen Thokala
    • 1
  • Penny R. Breeze
    • 1
  • Peter Bryden
    • 2
  • Ruth Wong
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Health and Related Research, University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.University of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations