Clinical management and burden of prostate cancer: a Markov Monte Carlo model

Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021246811.

Robot-Assisted Surgery vs Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Prostate cancer is the most common men cancer in France. Continuous progress in oncology led to develop robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomies (rRP) and robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy (rSBRT). The present study aims at comparing economic and clinical impacts of prostate cancer treatments performed either with rSBRT or rRP in France. A Markov model using TreeAge Pro software was chosen to calculate annual costs; utilities and transition probabilities of localized prostate cancer treatments. Patients were eligible for radiotherapy or surgery and the therapeutic decision was a robot-assisted intervention. Over a 10-year period, rSBRT yielded a significantly higher number of quality-adjusted life years than rRP (8.37 vs 6.85). In France, rSBRT seemed more expensive than rRP (€19,475 vs €18,968, respectively). From a societal perspective, rRP was more cost-saving (incremental cost effectiveness ratio = €332/QALY). The model was sensitive to variations of costs of the initial and recurrence state in one-way sensitivity analyses. Robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy seems more cost-effective than Radical Prostatectomy in terms of QALY despite the slightly higher initial cost due to the use of radiotherapy. It would be interesting to conduct comparative quality of life studies in France over longer periods of time.

Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP.

METHODS

Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%.

RESULTS

Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta's HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario's reimbursement decision.

How to measure temporal changes in care pathways for chronic diseases using health care registry data

BACKGROUND

Disease trajectories for chronic diseases can span over several decades, with several time-dependent factors affecting treatment decisions. Thus, there is a need for long-term predictions of disease trajectories to inform patients and healthcare professionals on the long-term outcomes and provide information on the need of future health care. Here, we propose a state transition model to describe and predict disease trajectories up to 25 years after diagnosis in men with prostate cancer (PCa), as a proof of principle.

METHODS

States, state transitions, and transition probabilities were identified and estimated in Prostate Cancer data Base of Sweden (PCBaSe^Traject), using nationwide population-based data from 118,743 men diagnosed with PCa. A state transition model in discrete time steps (i.e., 4 weeks) was developed and applied to capture all possible transitions (PCBaSe^Sim). Transition probabilities were estimated for changes in both treatment and comorbidity. These models combined yielded parameter estimates to run an individual-level simulation based on the state-transition model to obtain prediction estimates. Predicted estimates were then compared to real world data in PCBaSe^Traject.

RESULTS

PCBaSe^Sim estimates for the cumulative incidence of first and second transitions, death from PCa and death from other causes were compared to observed transitions in PCBaSe^Traject. A good agreement was found between simulated and observed estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a reliable and accurate simulation tool, PCBaSe^Sim that provides information on disease trajectories for subjects with a chronic disease on an individual and population-based level.

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

Background

Treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.

Results

In total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.

Conclusion

The cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

Robotic Surgical System for Radical Prostatectomy: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the prostate gland and surrounding tissues. In recent years, surgeons have begun to use robot-assisted radical prostatectomy more frequently. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and harms of the robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) compared with the open and laparoscopic surgical methods. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in Ontario.

METHODS

We performed a literature search and included prospective comparative studies that examined robot-assisted versus open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The outcomes of interest were perioperative, functional, and oncological. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 1-year time horizon. The potential long-term benefits of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for functional and oncological outcomes were also evaluated in a 10-year Markov model in scenario analyses. In addition, we conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs to the provincial budget if the adoption of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were to increase in the next 5 years. A needs assessment determined that the published literature on patient perspectives was relatively well developed, and that direct patient engagement would add relatively little new information.

RESULTS

Compared with the open approach, we found robot-assisted radical prostatectomy reduced length of stay and blood loss (moderate quality evidence) but had no difference or inconclusive results for functional and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had no difference in perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with open radical prostatectomy, our best estimates suggested that robot-assisted prostatectomy was associated with higher costs ($6,234) and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.0012). The best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5.2 million per QALY gained. However, if robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were assumed to have substantially better long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the ICER might be as low as $83,921 per QALY gained. We estimated the annual budget impact to be $0.8 million to $3.4 million over the next 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves functional and oncological outcomes compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. However, compared with open radical prostatectomy, the costs of using the robotic system are relatively large while the health benefits are relatively small.

Prolaris Cell Cycle Progression Test for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is very common and many localized tumours are non-aggressive. Determining which cancers are aggressive is important for choosing the most appropriate treatment (e.g., surgery, radiation, active surveillance). Current clinical risk stratification is reliable in forecasting the prognosis of groups of men with similar clinical and pathologic characteristics, but there is residual uncertainty at the individual level. The Prolaris cell cycle progression (CCP) test, a genomic test that estimates how fast tumour cells are proliferating, could potentially be used to improve the accuracy of individual risk assessment. This health technology assessment sought to determine the clinical utility, economic impact, and patients' perceptions of the value of the CCP test in low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence of the CCP test in low-and intermediate-risk, localized prostate cancer. Medical and health economic databases were searched from 2010 to June or July 2016. The critical appraisal of the clinical evidence included risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also analyzed the potential budget impact of adding the CCP test into current practice, from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Finally, we conducted qualitative interviews with men with prostate cancer, on the factors that influenced their treatment decision-making.

RESULTS

For the review of clinical effectiveness, we screened 3,021 citations, and two before-after studies met our inclusion criteria. In one study, the results of the CCP test appeared to change the treatment plan (from initial to final plan) in 64.9% of cases overall (GRADE rating of the quality of evidence: Very low). In the other study, the CCP test changed the treatment received in nearly half of cases overall, compared with the initial plan (GRADE: Very low). No evidence was available on clinical outcomes of patients whose treatment was informed by CCP results. For the review of cost-effectiveness, 100 citations were identified and screened. No studies met the inclusion criteria. In our economic evaluation, we estimated that publicly funding the CCP test would result in a total net budget impact of $41.3 million in the first 5 years, mostly due to the cost of the CCP test. In our model, the relatively small cost savings ($7.3 million) due to treatment change (increased use of active surveillance and decreased use of interventional treatment) was not large enough to offset the high cost of the test. Patients viewed the test as potentially helpful but, due to the complexity of treatment decision-making, were unsure the test would ultimately change their treatment choices.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to demonstrate the impact of the Prolaris CCP test on patient-important clinical outcomes. The limited evidence available shows that the test appears to provide information that, when considered in addition to clinical risk stratification, may change the treatment plan or actual treatment for some low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. As a result, there is insufficient data to inform the cost-effectiveness of the CCP test. Publicly funding the CCP test would result in a large incremental cost to the provincial budget.

Management of localized and advanced prostate cancer in Canada: A lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-year analysis

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, the literature to date lacks studies examining lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of prostate cancer (PCa) management strategies that integrate localized and advanced disease. The objective of the current study was to assess lifetime costs and QALYs associated with contemporary PCa management strategies across risk groups by integrating localized and advanced disease.

METHODS

The authors' validated Markov chain Monte Carlo model was used to predict lifetime direct costs and QALYs. The health states modeled were active surveillance, initial treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy), PCa recurrence, PCa recurrence free, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and death (cause specific/other causes). Data regarding treatment distribution, state transition probabilities, adverse effects of management options, costs, utilities, and disutilities were derived from the published literature.

RESULTS

The total cost per patient for the overall cohort increased from $18,503 at 5 years to $28,032 and $39,143, respectively, at 10 years and 15 years. Furthermore, the results indicated the influence of risk group on total cost, with the high-risk group accruing the maximum per patient cost followed by the intermediate-risk and low-risk groups. Active surveillance was found to confer the most QALYs (12.5 years) and was the least costly strategy ($18,452) for individuals at low risk. For all risk groups, radical prostatectomy was less costly and conferred modestly more QALYs compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health care systems in Canada and elsewhere are operating under budget constraints to allocate finite resources. The findings of the current study might inform discussions concerning budget planning to provide health care services.