Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32544574›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2020

Cost-Effectiveness of Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Neil R Parikh, Eric M Chang, Nicholas G Nickols, Matthew B Rettig, Ann C Raldow, Michael L Steinberg, Bridget F Koontz, Neha Vapiwala, Curtiland Deville, Felix Y Feng and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Neil R ParikhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Eric M ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Nicholas G NickolsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; VA Greater Los Angeles Health System, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Matthew B RettigVA Greater Los Angeles Health System, Los Angeles, California; Department of Medical Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Ann C RaldowDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Michael L SteinbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Bridget F KoontzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Neha VapiwalaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Curtiland DevilleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Felix Y FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Daniel E SprattDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Robert E ReiterDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Ryan PhillipsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Piet OstDepartment of Radiotherapy, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Phuoc T TranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Amar U KishanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: aukishan@mednet.ucla.edu.
University of California, Los Angeles · USJohns Hopkins University · USDuke University · USGhent University Hospital · BEJohns Hopkins Medicine · USLos Angeles Medical Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

UCLA SPORE IN PROSTATE CANCERP50CA092131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI FREEMAN, MICHAEL R · 2002 to 2023
$42.6M
Integrative Cancer Scholars Training GrantT32CA009213 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI CAREW, JENNIFER S, CURIEL-LEWANDROWSKI, CLARA · 1985 to 2024
$8.6M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA092131NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009213
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOligorecurrent prostate cancer has historically been treated with indefinite androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), although many patients and providers opt to defer this treatment at the time of recurrence given quality-of-life and/or comorbidity considerations. Recently, metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has emerged as a potential intermediary between surveillance and immediate continuous ADT. Simultaneously, advanced systemic therapy in addition to ADT has also been shown to improve survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating oligorecurrent patients with upfront MDT before standard-of-care systemic therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed comparing 3 strategies: (1) upfront MDT → salvage abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; (2) upfront AAP + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; and (3) upfront docetaxel + ADT → salvage AAP + ADT. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature. Using a 10-year time horizon and willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit values were subsequently calculated for each treatment strategy.

resultsAt 10 years, the base case revealed a total cost of $141,148, $166,807, and $136,154 with QALYs of 4.63, 4.89, and 4.00, respectively, reflecting a net monetary benefit of $322,240, $322,018, and $263,407 for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000,000 simulations), upfront MDT was the cost-effective strategy in 53.6% of simulations. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed 95% confidence intervals for cost ($75,914-$179,862, $124,431-$223,892, and $103,298-$180,617) and utility in QALYs (3.85-6.12, 3.91-5.86, and 3.02-5.22) for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively.

conclusionsAt 10 years, upfront MDT followed by salvage AAP + ADT, is comparably cost-effective compared with upfront standard-of-care systemic therapy and may be considered a viable treatment strategy, especially in patients wishing to defer systemic therapy for quality-of-life or comorbidity concerns. Additional studies are needed to determine whether MDT causes a sustained meaningful delay in disease natural history and whether any benefit exists in combining MDT with upfront advanced systemic therapy.

Indexed as

Androgen AntagonistsAndrostenesAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalConfidence IntervalsCost-Benefit AnalysisDocetaxelHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMonte Carlo MethodPrednisoneProstatic NeoplasmsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRadiosurgerySalvage TherapyTime FactorsabirateroneAndrogen AntagonistsAndrostenesAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalDocetaxelPrednisone

Identifiers

PMID32544574
PMCPMC11386274
OpenAlexW2973003210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.