Prospective evaluation of fexapotide triflutate injection treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: 4-year results

Nonsurgical Interventions to Prevent Disease Progression in Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) is a standard of care for patients with low-risk and selected intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Nevertheless, there is a lack of summary evidence on how to impact disease trajectory during AS.

OBJECTIVE

To assess which interventions prevent PCa progression effectively during AS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We queried PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify studies examining the impact of interventions aimed at slowing disease progression during AS. The primary endpoint was PCa progression, the definition of which must have included pathological upgrading. The secondary endpoint included treatment toxicities.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 22 studies, six randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies, which analyzed the association between different interventions and PCa progression during AS. The interventions considered in the studies included 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs), statins, diet, exercise, chlormadinone, fexapotide triflutate (FT), enzalutamide, coffee, vitamin D3, and PROSTVAC. We found that administration of 5-ARIs was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.72), with no increased toxicity signals. Therapies such as vitamin D3, chlormadinone, FT, and enzalutamide have shown some efficacy. However, these anticancer drugs have been associated with treatment-related adverse events in up to 88% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 5-ARIs in PCa patients on AS is associated with longer PFS. However, for the other interventions, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions based on the weak available evidence.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance (AS) who are treated with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors have a lower risk of disease progression, with minimal adverse events. Other interventions require more studies to determine their efficacy and safety profile in men on AS.

Fexapotide triflutate vs oral pharmacotherapy as initial therapy for moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the price range in which fexapotide triflutate (FT), a novel injectable, is cost-effective relative to current oral pharmacotherapy (5 α-reductase inhibitor, α-blocker, 5 α-reductase inhibitor and α-blocker combination therapy) as initial therapy followed by surgery for moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS).

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to track the progression of BPH-LUTS and associated costs and quality-adjusted life years in the target population. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from Medicare's perspective with a time horizon of 4 years using 2019 US dollars for all costs. The microsimulation model considered treatment patterns associated with nonadherence to oral medication and progression to surgery. Model parameters were estimated from large randomized controlled trials, literature and expert opinion. For each initial treatment option, simulations were performed with 1000 iterations, with 1000 patients per iteration.

RESULTS

Three upfront oral pharmacotherapy options are close in cost-effectiveness, with combination therapy being the most cost-effective option. Relative to upfront oral pharmacotherapy options, FT slightly increases quality-adjusted life years (QALY) per patient (1.870 (95% CI, 1.868 to 1.872) vs. 1.957 (95% CI, 1.955 to 1.959) QALYs). Under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY, at price per injection of $14,000, FT is about as cost-effective as upfront oral pharmacotherapy options with net monetary benefit (NMB) $279,168.54. Under the WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY, at price per injection of $5,000, FT is about as cost-effective as upfront oral pharmacotherapy options with NMB $92,135.18. In an alternative 10-year time horizon scenario, FT price per injection at $11,000 and $4,500 makes FT as cost-effective as oral pharmacotherapies. One-way sensitivity analysis showed this result is most sensitive to upfront therapy prices, FT efficacy and initial IPSS. At price per injections of $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000, the probability that FT is either cost-effective or dominant compared to upfront oral pharmacotherapy options using a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY is 100%, 93% and 40%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to upfront oral pharmacotherapy options, FT would be cost-effective at a price per injection below $14,000, assuming a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.