ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of eight first-line treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has shifted from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone to doublet or triplet regimens building on ADT. However, the cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for mHSPC in China is uncertain. This study aims to perform a 10-year horizon health economic evaluation to comparatively analyze the cost-effectiveness of eight treatment regimens for mHSPC from the perspective of China's healthcare system, including (1) ADT alone and ADT plus one of the following: (2) docetaxel, (3) abiraterone, (4) apalutamide, (5) enzalutamide, (6) rezvilutamide, (7) darolutamide and docetaxel, (8) abiraterone and docetaxel. Methods: Partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eight first-line treatment regimens for mHSPC. Drug costs were primarily extracted from pharmaceutical databases. The key outcomes were quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set as three-time China's gross domestic product (GDP) Results: For costs, the 10-year cost estimates ranged from US$120,844 for ADT alone to US$216,294 for darolutamide plus ADT with docetaxel. For clinical effectiveness, enzalutamide plus ADT yielded the highest QALYs (4.55), while ADT alone gained lowest QALYs (3.01). For cost-effectiveness, the three treatment regimens of ADT alone, abiraterone plus ADT and enzalutamide plus ADT constituted the cost-effectiveness frontier. Abiraterone plus ADT emerged as the most cost-effective strategy, indicative of an ICER of US$17437.16 per QALY, substantially below WTP threshold. Conclusion: Abiraterone plus ADT was likely to be cost-effective for mHSPC treatment at a WTP threshold of three-time
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.