Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for the Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer in Australia.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics
ISSN: 1179-2027
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoeconomics
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9212404
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
accepted:
10
05
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
23
7
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) is a new imaging modality to detect the extra-prostatic spread of prostate cancer. PSMA PET/CT has a higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging (CT ± whole body bone scan [WBBS]). This study conducted a cost-utility analysis of PSMA PET/CT compared with conventional imaging for patients with newly diagnosed, intermediate-risk or high-risk primary prostate cancer. Australian healthcare perspective. Tertiary. A decision-analytic Markov model combined data from a variety of sources. The time horizon was 35 years. The sensitivity and specificity of PSMA PET/CT and CT alone were based on meta-analyses and the test accuracy of CT+WBBS was based on a single randomised controlled trial. Health outcomes included cases detected, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. Costs related to other diagnostic tests, initial treatment, adverse events, and post-disease progression were included. All costs were reported in 2021 Australian Dollars (A$). The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PSMA PET/CT was estimated to be A $21,147/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT+WBBS, and A$36,231/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT alone. The results were most sensitive to the time horizon, and the initial treatments received by patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer. The probability of PSMA PET/CT being cost effective was estimated to be 91% versus CT+WBBS and 89% versus CT alone, using a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained. PSMA PET/CT is likely to be more costly than CT+WBBS or CT alone in Australia; however, it is still likely to be considered cost effective compared with conventional imaging.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) is a new imaging modality to detect the extra-prostatic spread of prostate cancer. PSMA PET/CT has a higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging (CT ± whole body bone scan [WBBS]). This study conducted a cost-utility analysis of PSMA PET/CT compared with conventional imaging for patients with newly diagnosed, intermediate-risk or high-risk primary prostate cancer.
PERSPECTIVE
Australian healthcare perspective.
SETTING
Tertiary.
METHODS
A decision-analytic Markov model combined data from a variety of sources. The time horizon was 35 years. The sensitivity and specificity of PSMA PET/CT and CT alone were based on meta-analyses and the test accuracy of CT+WBBS was based on a single randomised controlled trial. Health outcomes included cases detected, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. Costs related to other diagnostic tests, initial treatment, adverse events, and post-disease progression were included. All costs were reported in 2021 Australian Dollars (A$).
RESULTS
The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PSMA PET/CT was estimated to be A $21,147/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT+WBBS, and A$36,231/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT alone. The results were most sensitive to the time horizon, and the initial treatments received by patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer. The probability of PSMA PET/CT being cost effective was estimated to be 91% versus CT+WBBS and 89% versus CT alone, using a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained.
CONCLUSIONS
PSMA PET/CT is likely to be more costly than CT+WBBS or CT alone in Australia; however, it is still likely to be considered cost effective compared with conventional imaging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35761117
doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01156-4
pii: 10.1007/s40273-022-01156-4
pmc: PMC9300561
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gallium Radioisotopes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
807-821Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.
pubmed: 30207593
Cancer Australia. Relative survival by stage at diagnosis (prostate cancer). 2019. https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au/outcomes/relative-survival-rate/relative-survival-stage-diagnosis-prostate-cancer . Accessed 1 Jun 2022.
Schaeffer E, S Srinivas, ES Antonarakis, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer, version 1.2021. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(2):134–43.
pubmed: 33545689
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0008
Sanda MG, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199(3):683–90.
pubmed: 29203269
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095
Bekelman JE, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(32):3251–8.
pubmed: 30183466
doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00606
Wallitt KL, et al. Clinical PET imaging in prostate cancer. Radiographics. 2017;37(5):1512–36.
pubmed: 28800286
doi: 10.1148/rg.2017170035
Rayn KN, Elnabawi YA, Sheth N. Clinical implications of PET/CT in prostate cancer management. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(5):844–54.
pubmed: 30456187
pmcid: 6212623
doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.08.26
Fendler WP, et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):856–63.
pubmed: 30920593
pmcid: 6567829
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0096
Hofman MS, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395(10231):1208–16.
pubmed: 32209449
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. 2018. https://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/ . Accessed 26 Jul 2018.
Medical Services Advisory Committee. Technical guidelines for preparing assessment reports for the Medical Services Advisory Committee: medical service type: investigative (version 3.0). Canberra (ACT): Australian Government Department of Health; 2017.
Medical Services Advisory Committee. Public summary document: application 1632: PSMA PET/CT imaging for informing treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government Department of Health; 2021.
Jeet V, et al. Histopathologically validated diagnostic accuracy of PSMA PET/CT in the primary and secondary staging of prostate cancer and its impact on clinical management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Unpublished.
Sanda MG, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol. 2018;199(4):990–7.
pubmed: 29331546
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.002
Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel (version 365). 2021. https://office.microsoft.com/excel . Accessed 1 Jun 2022.
Cookson MS, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177(2):540–5.
pubmed: 17222629
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.097
Roach M 3rd, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(4):965–74.
pubmed: 16798415
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
Kunath F, et al. Early versus deferred standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;6(6):CD003506.
pubmed: 31194882
Bolla M, et al. Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2516–27.
pubmed: 19516032
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810095
Horwitz EM, et al. Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92–02: a phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(15):2497–504.
pubmed: 18413638
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9021
Hövels AM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(4):387–95.
pubmed: 18325358
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022
Evans SM, et al. Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia and New Zealand Report 2018: reporting on data 2015–2016. 2018. Melbourne: Monash University & The Movember Foundation; 2019.
Wang LL, et al. Patterns of care and outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria: an update. ANZ J Surg. 2018;88(10):1037–42.
pubmed: 30047208
doi: 10.1111/ans.14722
Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Hoffman RM, et al. Patient satisfaction with treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate carcinoma: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Cancer. 2003;97(7):1653–62.
pubmed: 12655522
doi: 10.1002/cncr.11233
Yeoh EE, et al. Evidence for efficacy without increased toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: early results of a phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55(4):943–55.
pubmed: 12605972
doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04146-9
D’Amico AV, et al. 6-Month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(7):821–7.
pubmed: 15315996
doi: 10.1001/jama.292.7.821
Wilt TJ, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(6):435–48.
pubmed: 18252677
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-6-200803180-00209
Nguyen PL, et al. Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy and strategies to mitigate them. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):825–36.
pubmed: 25097095
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.010
Therapeutic Goods Administration. Australian product information: docetaxel concentrated injection (docetaxel). Canberra (ACT): Therapeutic Goods Administration; 2020.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2017–18, AIHW cat .no. HWE 67. Canberra (ACT): Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2020.
Australian Government Department of Health. Medicare benefits schedule book operating from 1 March 2021. Canberra (ACT): Department of Health; 2021.
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Medical Services Advisory Committee. Application 1089: assessment report: review of interim funded service: brachytherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Canberra (ACT): Medical Services Advisory Committee Department of Health and Ageing; 2010.
Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Services Advisory Committee. Application No. 1158: robotic image-guided stereotactic precise beam radiosurgery and radiotherapy for lung cancer and prostate cancer. Canberra (ACT): Department of Health; 2012.
Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. National hospital cost data collection, public hospitals cost report, round 20, financial year 2015–16. Independent Hospital Pricing Authority; 2018.
Australian Government Department of Health. Schedule of pharmaceutical benefits, effective 1 March 2021. Canberra (ACT): Department of Health; 2021.
Deloitte Access Economics. The economic impact of incontinence in Australia. Deloitte Access Economics; 2011.
Nyrop KA, et al. Costs of health care for irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation, functional diarrhoea and functional abdominal pain. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26(2):237–48.
pubmed: 17593069
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03370.x
Cronin P, et al. Long-term health care costs for patients with prostate cancer: a population-wide longitudinal study in New South Wales, Australia. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017;13(3):160–71.
pubmed: 27619777
doi: 10.1111/ajco.12582
Magnus A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utility values of patients and partners between 2007 and 2016. MDM Policy Pract. 2019;4(1):2381468319852332.
pubmed: 31192309
pmcid: 6540514
Torvinen S, et al. Health-related quality of life in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(6):1094–101.
pubmed: 23368678
doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.760848
Watson E, et al. Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up. BJU Int. 2016;117(6b):E10–9.
pubmed: 25818406
doi: 10.1111/bju.13122
Diels J, et al. Mapping FACT-P to EQ-5D in a large cross-sectional study of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):591–8.
pubmed: 25326871
doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0794-5
Parkinson B, et al. Micro-costing study of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Unpublished.
Wang S, Gum D, Merlin T. Comparing the ICERs in medicine reimbursement submissions to NICE and PBAC: dose the presence of an explicit threshold affect the ICER proposed? Value Health. 2018;21(8):938–43.
pubmed: 30098671
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.017
Husereau D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1-5.
pubmed: 23538200
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.010
Vemer P, et al. AdViSHE: a validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(4):349–61.
pubmed: 26660529
doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0327-2
Culp SH, Schellhammer PF, Williams MB. Might men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer benefit from definitive treatment of the primary tumor? A SEER-based study Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1058–66.
pubmed: 24290503
Rusthoven CG, et al. Improved survival with prostate radiation in addition to androgen deprivation therapy for men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2835–42.
pubmed: 27325855
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.4788
Tilki D, et al. Local treatment for metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review. Int J Urol. 2018;25(5):390–403.
pubmed: 29572963
doi: 10.1111/iju.13535
Gordon LG, et al. Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of (68)Gallium-PSMA PET/MRI-based imaging in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2020;37(2):305–12.
pubmed: 32064552
doi: 10.1007/s10585-020-10027-1
Schwenck J, et al. Intention-to-treat analysis of (68)Ga-PSMA and (11)C-Choline PET/CT versus CT for prostate cancer recurrence after surgery. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(10):1359–65.
pubmed: 30850491
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.224543
Scholte M, et al. Modelling study with an interactive model assessing the cost-effectiveness of (68)Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography and nano magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with primary prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(5):967–74.
pubmed: 30826284
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.02.013
de Feria Cardet RE, et al. Is prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging cost-effective in prostate cancer: an analysis informed by the proPSMA Trial. Eur Urol. 2021;79(3):413–8.
pubmed: 33341285
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.043
Kuten J, et al. Head-to-head comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 with (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in staging prostate cancer using histopathology and immunohistochemical analysis as a reference standard. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(4):527–32.
pubmed: 31562225
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.234187
Boehler CE, Lord J. Mind the gap! A multilevel analysis of factors related to variation in published cost-effectiveness estimates within and between countries. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(1):31–47.
pubmed: 25878194
pmcid: 4708620
doi: 10.1177/0272989X15579173
Boulenger S, et al. Can economic evaluations be made more transferable? Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(4):334–46.
pubmed: 16249933
doi: 10.1007/s10198-005-0322-1