, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 489–505

Cost Effectiveness of 5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitors for the Prevention of Prostate Cancer in Multiple Patient Populations

  • Stephanie R. Earnshaw
  • Cheryl L. McDade
  • Libby K. Black
  • Christopher F. Bell
  • Michael W. Kattan
Original Research Article


Background: Although 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) have demonstrated that they reduce the risk of prostate cancer (PCa), they have not demonstrated cost effectiveness in the patient populations in which they have been examined.

Objective: A decision-analytic model was created to explore economic benefits from a third-party payer perspective of the use of 5ARIs in preventing PCa in men with different risk factors for developing the disease.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of men annually through health states (e.g. healthy male, benign prostatic hyperplasia [BPH], PCa, PCa recurrence) over a man’s lifetime. Men with risk factors were treated with a 5ARI and compared with patients given no chemoprevention. Men from the general population were examined along with higher-risk men who had been referred to a PCa centre. Baseline risk was estimated via published risk data, risk factor analyses and risk equations. Clinical efficacy,morality, costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. Outcomes of the model included number of prostate cancers, incremental costs, incremental QALYs, incremental cost per QALY and number needed to treat. Along with sensitivity and scenario analyses, a validation of outcomes was performed. All costs were valued in $US, year 2009 values. Costs were discounted at 3% per annum.

Results: Men receiving 5ARIs benefited through a reduction in the number of PCas. Assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of $US50 000 per QALY, chemoprevention with 5ARIs was cost effective ($US37 900 per QALY) in men from the general population who were aged 50 years with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and who were aged 50 years with PCa family history and elevated PSA ($US31 065 per QALY). Chemoprevention with 5ARIs was not cost effective in men aged 50 years with no additional risk factors, men aged 50 years with abnormal digital rectal examinations (DREs), and men aged 50 years with a family history ($US86 511, $US85 577 and $US84 950 per QALY, respectively). In higher-risk men, chemoprevention could be expected to be cost effective ($US18 490 to $US11 816 per QALY, depending on risk scenario). Results were sensitive to changes in utilities, assumed PCa risk reduction with 5ARIs, and patient age.

Conclusion: When considering common risk factors associated with PCa, prevention with 5ARIs is expected to be cost effective in 50-year-old men with elevated PSA. As a man’s risk increases, the cost effectiveness of 5ARI chemoprevention improves.

Supplementary material

40273_2012_28060489_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 1573 KB.


  1. 1.
    Parnes HL, Thompson IM, Ford LG. Prevention of hormone-related cancers: prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23 (2): 368–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Institute. Common cancer types [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Jun 24]
  3. 3.
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2009. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society, 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roehrborn CG, Marks LS, Fenter T, et al. Efficacy and safety of dutasteride in the four-year treatment of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2004; 63 (4): 709–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson IM, Goodman PH, Tangen CM, et al. The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349 (3): 213–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roehrborn CG, Boyle P, Nickel JC, et al. Efficacy and safety of a dual inhibitor of 5-alpha-reductase types 1 and 2 (dutasteride) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2002; 60: 434–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McConnell JD, Bruskewitz R, Walsh P, et al. The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 557–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andriole G, Bostwick D, Brawley O, et al., for the REDUCE Study Group. Chemoprevention of prostate cancer in men at high risk: rationale and design of the reduction by dutasteride of prostate cancer events (REDUCE) trial. J Urol 2004; 172 (4 Pt 1): 1314–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jack A. Cancer drug boost for Glaxo. Financial Times 2009 Apr 28 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Jun 15]
  10. 10.
    Zeliadt SB, Etzioni RD, Penson DF, et al. Lifetime implications and cost-effectiveness of using finasteride to prevent prostate cancer. Am J Med 2005; 118: 850–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Svatek RS, Lee JJ, Roehrborn CG, et al. The cost of prostate cancer chemoprevention: a decision analysis model. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006; 15 (8): 1485–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Svatek RS, Lee JJ, Roehrborn CG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer chemoprevention: a quality of life-years analysis. Cancer 2008; 112 (5): 1058–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7005–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weinstein MC. From cost-effectiveness ratios to resource allocation: where to draw the line. In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care: costs, benefits, and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and other medical technologies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eichler H, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of costeffectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004; 7 (5): 518–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 332–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Black L, Naslund MJ, Gilbert TD, et al. An examination of treatment patterns and costs of care among patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Am J Manag Care 2006; 12: S99–110Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finasteride. Proscar [package insert]. Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck & Co., Inc, 2007Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dutasteride. Avodart [package insert]. Research Triangle Park (NC): GlaxoSmithKline, 2005Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Vital Statistics Reports. Deaths: final data for 2005. Table 5: number of deaths and death rates by age, and age-adjusted death rates, according to specified Hispanic origin, race for non-Hispanic population, and sex. United States. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2005; 56 (10)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schröder FH, Roobol MJ, Andriole GL, et al. Defining increased future risk for prostate cancer: evidence from a population based screening cohort. J Urol 2009; 181 (1): 69–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maattanen J, Bangma CH, Aus G, et al., for the ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1320–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroder FH, Denis LJ, Roobol M, et al. The story of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. BJU Int 2003; 92: 1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lefkowitz GK, Taneja SS, Brown J, et al. Follow-up interval prostate biopsy 3 years after diagnosis of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is associated with high likelihood of prostate cancer, independent of change in prostate specific antigen levels. J Urol 2000; 168 (4 Pt 1): 1415–8Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Postma R, Roobol M, Schroder FH, et al. Lesions predictive for prostate cancer in a screened population: first and second screening round findings. Prostate 2004; 61 (3): 260–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park S, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol 2001; 165 (5): 1409–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kronz JD, Allan CH, Shaikh AA, et al. Predicting cancer following a diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on needle biopsy: data on men with more than one follow-up biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25 (8): 1079–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roobol M, Erasmus MC. Modelling determinants of prostate cancer risk: analyses of the ERSPC, Section Rotterdam database, version 2.1. Research Triangle Park (NC): GlaxoSmithKline, 2006 Oct 22. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Cancer Data Base. Benchmark reports (v2.0) [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Jun 24]
  30. 30.
    Chute CG, Panser LA, Girman CJ, et al. The prevalence of prostatism: a population-based survey of urinary symptoms. J Urol 1993; 150: 85–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bhatnagar V, Stewart ST, Huynh V, et al. Estimating the risk of long-term erectile, urinary and bowel symptoms resulting from prostate cancer treatment. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2006; 9: 136–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nam RK, Toi A, Klotz LH, et al. Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (24): 3582–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chun FK, Hutterer GC, Perrotte P, et al. Distribution of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and percentage free PSA in a contemporary screening cohort with no evidence of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007; 100: 37–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andersen JT, Nickel JC, Marshall VR, et al. Finasteride significantly reduces acute urinary retention and need for surgery in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 1997; 49: 839–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Micromedex, Inc. Red book. Vol. 52. Greenwood Village (CO): Micromedex, Inc., 2009Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    American Medical Association. Current procedural terminology CPT 2001. Chicago (IL): AMA Press, 2008Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ingenix, Inc. The essential RBRVS: a comprehensive listing of RBRVS values for CPT and HCPCS codes. Eden Prairie (MN): St. Anthony Publishing (Ingenix), 2008Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hanks GE, Dunlap K. A comparison of the cost of various treatment methods for early cancer of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1986; 12 (10): 1879–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Litwin MS, Smith RB, Thind A, et al. Cost-efficient radical prostatectomy with a clinical care path. J Urol 1996; 155 (3): 989–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burkhardt JH, Litwin MS, Rose CM, et al. Comparing the costs of radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy for the initial treatment of early-stage prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20 (12): 2869–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Benoit RM, Cohen JK, Miller Jr RJ. Comparison of the hospital costs for radical prostatectomy and cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. Urology 1998; 52 (5): 820–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koch MO, Smith Jr JA, Hodge EM, et al. Prospective development of a cost-efficient program for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1994; 44 (3): 311–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Silverstein AD, Weizer AZ, Dowell JM, et al. Cost comparison of radical retropubic and radical perineal prostatectomy: single institution experience. Urology 2004; 63 (4): 746–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    US Department of Labor, US Bureau of Labor Statistics. US city average, not seasonally adjusted medical care [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Jun 24]
  45. 45.
    Coley CM, Barry MJ, Fleming C, et al. Clinical guidelines: early detection of prostate cancer. Part II. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126 (6): 468–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Data on file, GlaxoSmithKline, 2008 Apr 30Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Penson DF, Schonfeld WH, Flanders SC, et al. Relationship of first-year costs of treating localized prostate cancer to initial choice of therapy and stage at diagnosis: results from the CaPSURE database. Urology 2001; 57: 499–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Walgreens [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Jun 15]
  49. 49.
    Albertsen PC, Lowe FC, Roehrborn CG. Economic analysis of finasteride: a model-based approach using data from the Proscar long-term efficacy and safety study. Clin Ther 1999; 21 (6): 1006–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mittmann N, Trakas K, Risebrough N, et al. Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community dwelling population. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15 (4): 369–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brenmer KE, Chong C, Tomlinson G. A review and metaanalysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 288–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ackerman SJ, Rein AL, Blute M, et al. Cost effectiveness of microwave thermotherapy in patientswith benign prostatic hyperplasia: part I. Methods. Urology 2000; 56: 972–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Barry MJ, et al. for the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) Guideline Update Panel of the American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), updated 2006 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Jun 24]
  54. 54.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. SEER*Stat databases: incidence-SEER 13 Regs publicuse, November 2004 sub for expanded races (1992–2002), and incidence-SEER 13 Regs excluding AK public-use, November 2004 sub for Hispanics (1992–2002), released April 2005 [online]. Available from URL:^0^62^1^1^&dec=4&title=Age-specific%20(Crude)%20SEER%20Incidence%20Rates%20by%20Expanded%20Race~For%20Prostate%20Cancer,%20Males~SEER%2013%20Registries%20for%201998-2002&template=faststats&x=Age%20at%20diagnosis^2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20&y=Race/ethnicity^1,2,3,4 [Accessed 2009 Jun 24]
  56. 56.
    National Cancer Institute, Statistical Research and Applications Branch. DevCan: probability of developing or dying of cancer (version 6.1.0), 2006 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 Jun 24]Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    National Cancer Institute. Statistical Research and Applications. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results programme. Cancer Query System: probability of developing or dying of cancer [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Feb 6]
  58. 58.
    Andriole GL, Pettaway CA, Teloken C, et al. Incidence of biopsy-detectable prostate cancer in the Reduction of Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) trial: blinded 2-year results [presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association; 2009 Apr 25-30; Chicago (IL)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie R. Earnshaw
    • 1
  • Cheryl L. McDade
    • 1
  • Libby K. Black
    • 2
  • Christopher F. Bell
    • 2
  • Michael W. Kattan
    • 3
  1. 1.RTI Health SolutionsResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations