ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2019
Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Androgen Deprivation Therapy to Radiation Therapy for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer from a U.S. Payer's Perspective.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The cost-effectiveness of medical versus surgical androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer in Tanzania: a Markov model-based analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact and Outcomes of Pretreatment Total Serum Testosterone on Localized Prostate Cancer Patients.Prostate cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo study has investigated the cost and effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and other curative treatment therapies among the Medicare population, and no study has taken into consideration the long-term side effects associated with ADT.
objectiveTo examine if adding ADT was cost-effective when accounting for ADT-related long-term side effects in men with prostate cancer.
methodsFor this cost-utility analysis, we used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to estimate and compare patient survival, costs from a health payer's perspective, and cost-effectiveness of 3 treatment modalities for advanced prostate cancer patients, including radiation therapy, radiation plus ADT, and active surveillance. We also estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by assigning appropriate health state utility values obtained from the literature for each phase of care and for long-term side effects. Propensity score matching was used to control for bias and confounding that were inherent to the observational study design.
resultsAdding ADT to radiation therapy increased median patient survival by 0.71 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for radiation plus ADT versus radiation alone was $63,049 and $295,995 per mean life-year gained for radiation compared with active surveillance, respectively. Treatment-associated adverse side effects substantially reduced QALYs gained. Compared with radiation only, the incremental cost of radiation plus ADT was $127,900 per mean QALY and was nearly 80% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $210,000 per QALY.
conclusionsDespite ADT-associated costs and long-term side effects, compared with radiation alone, radiation plus ADT was cost-effective at $127,900 per QALY. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported in part by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (grant nos. RP130051 and RP170668). The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.