Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

e-Poster Display Session

220P - A cost-effectiveness analysis of systemic therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Date

22 Nov 2020

Session

e-Poster Display Session

Topics

Tumour Site

Prostate Cancer

Presenters

Winnie Sung

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_6): S1325-S1333. 10.1016/annonc/annonc369

Authors

W.W. Sung1, H.C. Choi2, P.H. Luk2, T.H. So2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Stanford University School Of Medicine, Clinical Excellence Research Center, 94305 - Stanford/US
  • 2 Clinical Oncology Department, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong/HK

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 220P

Background

The treatment paradigm of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has significantly changed over the past decade. Currently, approved first-line treatment options include (1) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus one of the following: (2) docetaxel, (3) abiraterone, (4) enzalutamide, and (5) apalutamide. The high cost of novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors warrants an understanding of the combinations’ value by considering both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options in mHSPC from the US payer perspective to guide treatment sequence.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of ADT alone, docetaxel plus ADT, abiraterone plus ADT, enzalutamide plus ADT, and apalutamide plus ADT in the first-line treatment of mHSPC using outcomes data from published literature. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Pharmaceutical Catalog in 2020 US dollars. We extrapolated survival beyond closure of the trials. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic analyses. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 per QALY was used.

Results

Compared to ADT alone, docetaxel plus ADT provided a 0.31 QALY gain at an ICER of US$1,542 per QALY. Abiraterone plus ADT provided an additional 1.29 QALYs against docetaxel plus ADT, with an ICER of US$26,416 per QALY. Compared to abiraterone plus ADT, enzalutamide plus ADT provided an additional 0.06 QALYs at an ICER of US$3,826,216 per QALY. Given the WTP threshold of US$100,000 per QALY, abiraterone plus ADT represented high-value health care Table: 220P

Base case results

Strategy Total Incremental ICER (US$/QALY)
Cost (US$) QALYs Life-years Cost (US$) QALYs
ADT only 97,767 3.56 4.70 --- --- Baseline
DCX + ADT 98,237 3.87 5.08 470 0.31 1,542
AA + ADT 132,403 5.16 6.45 34,165 1.29 26,416
APA + ADT 300,891 4.14 5.30 --- --- Dominated
ENZ + ADT 366,476 5.22 6.51 234,073 0.06 3,826,216

QALY=quality-adjusted life-year; ICER=incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; DCX=docetaxel; ADT=androgen deprivation therapy; AA=abiraterone; APA=apalutamide; ENZ=enzalutamide.

.

Conclusions

Abiraterone plus ADT is the preferred treatment option for men with mHSPC at a WTP threshold of US$100,000 per QALY.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.