Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26482768›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

Decision analytic cost-effectiveness model to compare prostate cryotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy for treatment of radiation recurrent prostate cancer.

Kathleen A Boyd, Rob J Jones, Jim Paul, Fiona Birrell, Andrew H Briggs, Hing Y Leung

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Health utility and health-related quality of life of Japanese prostate cancer patients according to progression status measured using EQ-5D-5L and FACT-P.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kathleen A BoydHealth Economics & Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Rob J JonesCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK Institute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Bearsden, Glasgow, UK.
Jim PaulCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
Fiona BirrellDepartment of Urology, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Andrew H BriggsHealth Economics & Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Hing Y LeungInstitute of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Bearsden, Glasgow, UK Department of Urology, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Bearsden, Glasgow, UK.
University of Glasgow · GBBeatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre · GBNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1381/A12441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of salvage cryotherapy (SC) in men with radiation recurrent prostate cancer (RRPC).

designCost-utility analysis using decision analytic modelling by a Markov model. SETTING AND

methodsCompared SC and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a cohort of patients with RRPC (biopsy proven local recurrence, no evidence of metastatic disease). A literature review captured published data to inform the decision model, and resource use data were from the Scottish Prostate Cryotherapy Service. The model was run in monthly cycles for RRPC men, mean age of 70 years. The model was run over the patient lifetime, to assess changes in patient health states and the associated quality of life, survival and cost impacts. Results are reported in terms of the discounted incremental costs and discounted incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained between the 2 alternative interventions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis used a 10,000 iteration Monte Carlo simulation.

resultsSC has a high upfront treatment cost, but delays the ongoing monthly cost of ADT. SC is the dominant strategy over the patient lifetime; it is more effective with an incremental 0.56 QALY gain (95% CI 0.28 to 0.87), and less costly with a reduced lifetime cost of £29,719 (€37,619) (95% CI -51,985 to -9243). For a ceiling ratio of £30,000, SC has a 100% probability to be cost-effective. The cost neutral point was at 3.5 years, when the upfront cost of SC (plus any subsequent cumulative cost of side effects and ADT) equates the cumulative cost in the ADT arm. Limitations of our model may arise from its insensitivity to parameter or structural uncertainty.

conclusionsThe platform for SC versus ADT cost-effective analysis can be employed to evaluate other treatment modalities or strategies in RRPC. SC is the dominant strategy, costing less over a patient's lifetime with improvements in QALYs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This economic analysis was undertaken as part of the CROP RCT study ISRCTN: 72677390; it was a pre-trial economic model developed and analysed during the pre-results stage of the RCT.

Indexed as

AgedCost-Benefit AnalysisCryotherapyHumansMaleMarkov ChainsModels, EconomicNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatic NeoplasmsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeSalvage Therapyandrogen deprivation therapycost-effectiveness analysisProstate disease < UROLOGYradiation recurrent prostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID26482768
PMCPMC4611206
OpenAlexW1809287976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.