ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy before radical prostatectomy in high-risk localized prostate cancer.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: High-risk localized prostate cancer is often associated with a higher risk of disease progression post-surgery. While radical prostatectomy (RP) is a cornerstone treatment, neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (CHT) combining docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prior to RP has shown promising efficacy in improving survival outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the economic efficacy of neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP based on the results of CALGB 90203 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three states: event-free survival (EFS), progressive disease (PD), and death, was constructed. Clinical efficacy data, including overall survival and event-free survival, were obtained from the CALGB 90203 trial. Utility values, costs of drugs, surgery, follow-up, and adverse events were derived from local data and literature. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of neoadjuvant therapy vs. surgery alone per QALY gained were calculated, with a 5% annual discount rate applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed against a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $41,859 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model robustness. Results: Compared with RP alone, the neoadjuvant CHT strategy provided an additional 1.08 QALYs at an incremental cost of $5,663, resulting in an ICER of $5,238 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to changes in health utility values of EFS and PD state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 96.40% probability that neoadjuvant CHT is cost-effective at the defined threshold. Conclusion: From the Chinese payer's perspective, neoadjuvant CHT prior to radical prostatectomy is a highly cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer even when accounting for the upfront costs and quality-of-life impact associated with treatment-related adverse events.
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.