Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have expanded rapidly in recent years. Given the significant economic burden, we sought perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the contemporary treatment paradigm for mCRPC. METHODS: We devised a treatme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pollard, Matthew E., Moskowitz, Alan J., Diefenbach, Michael A., Hall, Simon J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Second Military Medical University 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5730904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29264205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2016.11.005
_version_ 1783286428100198400
author Pollard, Matthew E.
Moskowitz, Alan J.
Diefenbach, Michael A.
Hall, Simon J.
author_facet Pollard, Matthew E.
Moskowitz, Alan J.
Diefenbach, Michael A.
Hall, Simon J.
author_sort Pollard, Matthew E.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have expanded rapidly in recent years. Given the significant economic burden, we sought perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the contemporary treatment paradigm for mCRPC. METHODS: We devised a treatment protocol consisting of sipuleucel-T, enzalutamide, abiraterone, docetaxel, radium-223, and cabazitaxel. We estimated number and length of treatments for each therapy using dosing schedules or progression free survival data from published clinical trials. We estimated treatment cost using billing data and Medicare reimbursement values and performed a CEA. Our analysis assumed US$100,000 per life year saved (LYS) as the threshold societal willingness to pay. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for strategies incorporating sipuleucel-T that were not eliminated by extended dominance exceeded the societal threshold willingness-to-pay of US$100,000 per LYS, the lowest of which was sipuleucel-T + enzalutamide + abiraterone + docetaxel at US$207,714 per LYS. Enzalutamide + abiraterone + docetaxel exhibited the most favorable ICER among strategies without sipuleucel-T at US$165,460 per LYS. CONCLUSION: Based on the available survival data and current costs of treatment, all treatment strategies greatly exceed a commonly assumed societal willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per LYS. Improvements in this regard can only come with a reduction in pricing, better tailoring of treatment or significant enhancements in survival with clinical use of treatment combinations or sequences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5730904
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Second Military Medical University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57309042017-12-20 Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer Pollard, Matthew E. Moskowitz, Alan J. Diefenbach, Michael A. Hall, Simon J. Asian J Urol Original Article OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have expanded rapidly in recent years. Given the significant economic burden, we sought perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the contemporary treatment paradigm for mCRPC. METHODS: We devised a treatment protocol consisting of sipuleucel-T, enzalutamide, abiraterone, docetaxel, radium-223, and cabazitaxel. We estimated number and length of treatments for each therapy using dosing schedules or progression free survival data from published clinical trials. We estimated treatment cost using billing data and Medicare reimbursement values and performed a CEA. Our analysis assumed US$100,000 per life year saved (LYS) as the threshold societal willingness to pay. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for strategies incorporating sipuleucel-T that were not eliminated by extended dominance exceeded the societal threshold willingness-to-pay of US$100,000 per LYS, the lowest of which was sipuleucel-T + enzalutamide + abiraterone + docetaxel at US$207,714 per LYS. Enzalutamide + abiraterone + docetaxel exhibited the most favorable ICER among strategies without sipuleucel-T at US$165,460 per LYS. CONCLUSION: Based on the available survival data and current costs of treatment, all treatment strategies greatly exceed a commonly assumed societal willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per LYS. Improvements in this regard can only come with a reduction in pricing, better tailoring of treatment or significant enhancements in survival with clinical use of treatment combinations or sequences. Second Military Medical University 2017-01 2016-12-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5730904/ /pubmed/29264205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2016.11.005 Text en © 2017 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Pollard, Matthew E.
Moskowitz, Alan J.
Diefenbach, Michael A.
Hall, Simon J.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
title Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
title_full Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
title_short Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
title_sort cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5730904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29264205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2016.11.005
work_keys_str_mv AT pollardmatthewe costeffectivenessanalysisoftreatmentsformetastaticcastrationresistantprostatecancer
AT moskowitzalanj costeffectivenessanalysisoftreatmentsformetastaticcastrationresistantprostatecancer
AT diefenbachmichaela costeffectivenessanalysisoftreatmentsformetastaticcastrationresistantprostatecancer
AT hallsimonj costeffectivenessanalysisoftreatmentsformetastaticcastrationresistantprostatecancer