Addition of Docetaxel and/or Zoledronic Acid to Standard of Care for Hormone-naive Prostate Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Issue 4 (July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhang, Pengfei; Wen, Feng; Fu, Ping; Yang, Yu; Li, Qiu
• Is Part Of: Tumori. Volume 103:Issue 4(2017)
• Page Start: 380
• Page End: 386
• Publication Date: 2017-07
• Subjects: Cost-effectiveness -- Docetaxel -- Prostate cancer -- Standard of care -- Zoledronic acid; Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000583
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-8916

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel and/or zoledronic acid to the standard of care (SOC) for hormone-naive prostate cancer has been evaluated in the STAMPEDE trial. The object of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options in the treatment of advanced hormone-naive prostate cancer in China. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was carried out from the Chinese societal perspective. The efficacy data were obtained from the STAMPEDE trial and health utilities were derived from previous studies. Transition probabilities were calculated based on the survival in each group. The primary endpoint in the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and model uncertainties were explored by 1-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: SOC alone generated an effectiveness of 2.65 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lifetime cost of $20, 969.23. At a cost of $25, 001.34, SOC plus zoledronic acid was associated with 2.69 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $100, 802.75/QALY compared with SOC alone. SOC plus docetaxel gained an effectiveness of 2.85 QALYs at a cost of $28, 764.66, while the effectiveness and cost data in the SOC plus zoledronic acid/docetaxel group were 2.78 QALYs and $32, 640.95. Conclusions: Based on the results of the analysis, SOC plus zoledronic acid, SOC plus docetaxel, and SOC plus zoledronic acid/docetaxel are unlikely to be cost-effective options in patients with advanced hormone-naive prostate cancer compared with SOC alone.