Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data

Abiraterone for "STAMPEDE-Like" cohort of high-risk prostate cancer in the PSMA-PET era: too much, too early?

PURPOSE

To assess long-term survival in a "STAMPEDE-like" cohort of high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer, staged with PSMA PET-CT, treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LT-ADT) without abiraterone.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer fulfilling "STAMPEDE high-risk" criteria, staged with PSMA PET-CT, treated with external beam RT from 2016 to 2021 were included. RT dose was >74 Gy equivalent to prostate with LT-ADT ≥ 2 years. We analysed metastatic-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

170 patients were eligible, treated with hypofractionated RT with median prostate 2Gy-equivalent dose of 82 Gy. About one-third were node-positive and treated with whole pelvic RT. Over median follow up of 65 months, 6-years MFS, PCSS and OS were 80.7%, 95.8% and 94.4% respectively. On multivariate analysis, Gleason score and nodal stage showed significant association with MFS.

CONCLUSION

For PSMA-PETCT staged high risk prostate cancer, appropriately intensified local treatment could be complementary or an alternative to systemic intensification in selected patients.

Economic Considerations in Designs and Modifications of Multiarm, Multistage Adaptive and Adaptive Platform Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

There is uncertainty around whether, and under what circumstances, there is value in embedding economic considerations into multiarm, multistage (MAMS) adaptive, and adaptive platform trial designs. This systematic review was conducted to assess the analytical methods and factors that are considered when incorporating health economic analyses when designing and modifying MAMS adaptive and adaptive platform trials.

METHODS

The review searched for health economic analyses, including planned analyses, of interventions assessed through MAMS adaptive, and adaptive platform trials. The search for articles was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases from their inception to 7 August 2023. The screening for articles was conducted by 2 blinded reviewers who followed a predetermined screening process. A narrative synthesis was conducted on the methods used in the analysis and how the results informed the trial designs and modifications.

RESULTS

The review included 17 articles, of which 4 were the results of economic evaluations, whereas 13 were economic evaluation protocols. No trial was reported using pretrial economic evaluations to inform the trial designs. In 14 articles, it was possible to estimate the costs and benefits of the interventions at the interim analysis stages. There were only 5 interim cost-effectiveness analyses, and 3 of these had informed decisions to drop or maintain trial arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics is being embedded in some MAMS adaptive and adaptive platform trials to inform trial modifications. Nevertheless, the use of economic evidence is limited, both by design and circumstance, despite its potential importance in adopting decisions.

« Augmented radiotherapy » in the management of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa): A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In patients with high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), intensification with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) improves overall survival (OS), at the cost of significant side-effects. We hypothesized that "augmented RT" schedules (defined as either dose-escalation on the prostate gland over 78 Gy and/or addition of whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT)), combined with long-term ADT can reach excellent prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS) in this population with little detrimental impact on quality of life.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed database until February 8, 2024. Studies reporting both oncological and toxicity outcomes after "augmented RT" were deemed eligible. Studies without ADT or with ARPI intensification were deemed ineligible.

RESULTS

Dose-escalation within the prostate gland at doses over 78 Gy halved the risk of biochemical recurrence at 5 years, with however no impact on PCSS. The addition of WPRT provides a 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) reaching 89.5 % at 5 years, with no significant increase in late grade≥ 2 genito-urinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Combined approaches result in 9-year PCSS ranging between 96.1 % and 100 %. Most approaches demonstrated excellent safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

"Augmented RT" reached excellent oncological outcomes, with minimal additional toxicity. The development of biomarkers might lead to further treatment personalization, in the rapidly evolving landscape of systemic therapies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional local prostate radio therapy in metastatic prostate cancer from a medicare perspective

BACKGROUND

Metastatic prostate cancer remains a therapeutic challenge. Based on data of the STAMPEDE trial, patients with a low metastatic burden showed prolonged failure-free and overall survival when treated with prostate radio therapy (RT) in addition to standard of care (SOC). The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of additional prostate RT compared to SOC alone for following subgroups: non-regional lymph node (NRLN) metastases, up to three bone metastases and four or more bone metastases.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was implemented with clinical data from STAMPEDE trial. Analyses were performed from a United States healthcare system perspective. Costs for treatment and adverse events were derived from Medicare coverage. Utilities for health states were derived from public databases and literature. Outcome measurements included incremental costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set to USD 100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

Additional RT led to 0.92 incremental QALYs with increased costs of USD 26,098 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 28,452/QALY for patients with only NRLN metastases and 3.83 incremental QALYs with increased costs of USD 153,490 with an ICER of USD 40,032/QALY for patients with up to three bone metastases. Sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the model regarding various parameters. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations, additional RT was found as the cost-effective strategy in over 96% for both subgroups iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 100,000/QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional RT is cost-effective in patients with only NRLN metastases and up to three metastases compared to SOC.

The Lancet Commission on prostate cancer: planning for the surge in cases

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in 112 countries, and accounts for 15% of cancers. In this Commission, we report projections of prostate cancer cases in 2040 on the basis of data for demographic changes worldwide and rising life expectancy. Our findings suggest that the number of new cases annually will rise from 1·4 million in 2020 to 2·9 million by 2040. This surge in cases cannot be prevented by lifestyle changes or public health interventions alone, and governments need to prepare strategies to deal with it. We have projected trends in the incidence of prostate cancer and related mortality (assuming no changes in treatment) in the next 10–15 years, and make recommendations on how to deal with these issues.

For the Commission, we established four working groups, each of which examined a different aspect of prostate cancer: epidemiology and future projected trends in cases, the diagnostic pathway, treatment, and management of advanced disease, the main problem for most men diagnosed with prostate cancer worldwide. Throughout we have separated problems in high-income countries (HICs) from those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), although we acknowledge that this distinction can be an oversimplification (some rich patients in LMICs can access high-quality care, whereas many patients in HICs, especially the USA, cannot because of inadequate insurance coverage). The burden of disease globally is already substantial, but options to improve care are already available at moderate cost. We found that late diagnosis is widespread worldwide, but especially in LMICs, where it is the norm. Early diagnosis improves prognosis and outcomes, and reduces societal and individual costs, and we recommend changes to the diagnostic pathway that can be immediately implemented. For men diagnosed with advanced disease, optimal use of available technologies, adjusted to the resource levels available, could produce improved outcomes. We also found that demographic changes (ie, changing age structures and increasing life expectancy) in LMICs will drive big increases in prostate cancer, and cases are also projected to rise in high-income countries. This projected rise in cases has driven the main thrust of our recommendations throughout. Dealing with this rise in cases will require urgent and radical interventions, particularly in LMICs, including an emphasis on education (both of health professionals and the general population) linked to outreach programmes to increase awareness. If implemented, these interventions would shift the case mix from advanced to earlier-stage disease, which in turn would necessitate different treatment approaches: earlier diagnosis would prompt a shift from palliative to curative therapies based around surgery and radiotherapy. Although age-adjusted mortality from prostate cancer is falling in HICs, it is rising in LMICs. And, despite large, well known differences in disease incidence and mortality by ethnicity (eg, incidence in men of African heritage is roughly double that in men of European heritage), most prostate cancer research has disproportionally focused on men of European heritage. Without urgent action, these trends will cause global deaths from prostate cancer to rise rapidly.

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival.

METHODS

We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial).

INTERPRETATION

Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE).

METHODS

Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results.

RESULTS

At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.