Treatments for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (mPC): A Review of Costing Evidence
- 946 Downloads
Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in Western countries. More than one third of PC patients develop metastatic disease, and the 5-year expected survival in distant disease is about 35%. During the last few years, new treatments have been launched for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
We aimed to review the current literature on health economic analysis on the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), compare the studies, summarize the findings and make the results available to administrators and decision makers.
A systematic literature search was done for economic evaluations (cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-of-illness, cost-of-drug, and cost-benefit analyses). We employed the PubMed® search engine and searched for publications published between 2012 and 2016. The terms used were “prostate cancer”, “metastatic” and “cost”. An initial screening of all headlines was performed, selected abstracts were analysed, and finally the full papers investigated. Study characteristics, treatment and comparator, country, type of evaluation, perspective, year of value, time horizon, efficacy data, discount rate, total costs and sensitivity analysis were analysed. The quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.
A total of 227 publications were detected and screened, 58 selected for full-text assessment and 31 included in the final analyses. Despite the significant international literature on the treatment of mCRPC, there were only 15 studies focusing on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Medical treatment constituted two thirds of the selected studies. Significant costs in the treatment of mCRPC were disclosed. In the pre-docetaxel setting, both abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide were concluded beyond accepted cost/quality-adjusted life year limits. In the docetaxel refractory setting, most studies concluded that enzalutamide was cost-effective and superior to AA. In most studies, cabazitaxel was not recommended, because of high cost. Looking at bone-targeting drugs, generic zoledronic acid (ZA) was recommended. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was analysed in three studies, and single fraction radiotherapy was concluded to be cost saving. Radium-223 was documented as beneficial, but costly. The quality of the studies was generally good, but sensitivity analyses, discounting and the measurement of health outcomes were present in less than two thirds of the selected studies.
The treatment of mCRPC was associated with significant cost. In the post-docetaxel setting, single fraction radiotherapy and enzalutamide were considered cost-effective in most studies. Generic ZA was the recommended bone-targeting therapy.
The authors acknowledge the service offered by the library at the Faculty of Health Science at the UiT—The Arctic University of Norway, which made all articles available to the researchers. We are also grateful to the librarian at the Nordland Hospital Bodø.
The editor of PharmacoEconomics suggested the review. Both authors developed the idea. JN did the search employing the PubMed® search engine and screened all articles and performed all full-text analyses. The writing process was done by CN and JN.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Jan Norum and Carsten Nieder declare they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.
- 2.Basch E, Loblaw DA, Oliver TK, Carducci M, Chen RC, Frame JN, et al. Systemic therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(30):3436–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.Cancer Registry of Norway. Cancer in Norway 2015. Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2016.Google Scholar
- 6.Loblaw DA, Virgo KS, Nam R, Somerfield MR, Ben-Josef E, Mendelson DS, et al. Initial hormonal management of androgen-sensitive metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer: 2006 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(12):1596–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines for patients with prostate cancer. Version 1.2016. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Fort Washington, PA, U.S., 2016.Google Scholar
- 9.James ND, De Bono JS, Spears MR, Clarke N, Mason MD, Dearnaley DP, et al. Adding abiraterone for men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT): survival results from STAMPEDE (NCT00268476). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:suppl. abstr LBA5003.Google Scholar
- 10.Fizazi K, Tran N, Fein LE, Matsubara N, Antolín AR, Alekseev BY, et al. LATITUDE: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of androgen deprivation therapy with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or placebos in newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:suppl. abstr LBA3.Google Scholar
- 16.Norum J, Traasdahl ER, Totth A, Nieder C, Olsen JA. Health economics and radium-223 (Xofigo®) in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): a case history and a systematic review of the literature. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;8(4):1–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Swedish National Board for Health and Welfare. Health economic data for the national guidelines for prostate cancer 2014. Stockholm: Swedish National Board for Health and Welfare; 2014.Google Scholar
- 19.Massoudi M, Balk M, Yang H, Bui CN, Pandya BJ, Guo J, et al. Number needed to treat and associated incremental costs of treatment with enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Med Econ. 2017;20(2):121–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Ramaekers BL, Riemsma R, Tomini F, van Asselt T, Deshpande S, Duffy S, et al. Abiraterone acetate for the treatment of chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an evidence review group perspective of an NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(2):191–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.James N, Pirrie S, Pope A, Barton D, Andronis L, Goranitis I, et al. TRAPEZE: a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy with zoledronic acid, strontium-89, or both, in men with bony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(53):1–288.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Andronis L, Goranitis I, Pirrie S, Pope A, Barton D, Collins S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid and strontium-89 as bone protecting treatments in addition to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer: results from the TRAPEZE trial (ISRCTN 12808747). BJU Int. 2017;119(4):522–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 50.Statistics Canada. Canadian cancer statistics 2012. Toronto: Canadian Cancer Society; 2012.Google Scholar
- 56.Ghatnekar O, Nørgaard K, Skaltsa K. PCN191—results and implications of using a new eq-5d value set for cost-utility analyses in Sweden. An application using enzalutamide (Xtandi®) verse best supportive care for treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (MCRPC). Value Health. 2014;17(7):A648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar