Advertisement

Heterogeneity in Radiotherapeutic Parameter Assumptions in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Prostate Cancer: A Call for Uniformity

Published:October 22, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.010

      Highlights

      • We sought to determine parameter estimates made in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in prostate cancer and identified 508 model estimates.
      • We noted substantial heterogeneity in parameter estimates made across CEAs.
      • To assess the impact of this heterogeneity, we constructed a Markov cohort model using the parameters we identified from our systematic review, which demonstrated 3 separate acceptability determinations.
      • Such variation suggests that the parameter estimates underlying individual CEAs must be considered carefully before altering clinical management decisions or health policy.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may provide useful data to inform management decisions depending on the robustness of a model’s input parameters. We sought to determine the level of heterogeneity in health state utility values, transition probabilities, and cost estimates across published CEAs assessing primarily radiotherapeutic management strategies in prostate cancer.

      Methods

      We conducted a systematic review of prostate cancer CEAs indexed in MEDLINE between 2000 and 2018 comparing accepted treatment modalities across all cancer stages. Search terms included “cost effectiveness prostate,” “prostate cancer cost model,” “cost utility prostate,” and “Markov AND prostate AND (cancer OR adenocarcinoma).” Included studies were agreed upon. A Markov model was designed using the parameter estimates from the systematic review to evaluate the effect of estimate heterogeneity on strategy cost acceptability.

      Results

      Of 199 abstracts identified, 47 publications were reviewed and 37 were included; 508 model estimates were compared. Estimates varied widely across variables, including gastrointestinal toxicity risk (0%-49.5%), utility of metastatic disease (0.25-0.855), intensity-modulated radiotherapy cost ($21 193-$61 996), and recurrence after external-beam radiotherapy (1.5%-59%). Multiple studies assumed that different radiotherapy modalities delivering the same dose yielded varying cancer control rates. When using base estimates for similar parameters from included studies, the designed model resulted in 3 separate acceptability determinations.

      Conclusions

      Significant heterogeneity exists across parameter estimates used to perform CEAs evaluating treatment for prostate cancer. Heterogeneity across model inputs yields variable conclusions with respect to the favorability and cost-effectiveness of treatment options. Decision makers are cautioned to review estimates in CEAs to ensure they are up to date and relevant to setting and population.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Value in Health
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siegel R.L.
        • Miller K.D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2020.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70: 7-30
      1. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. 1.2020 version 2020. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2020.

        • Butler S.S.
        • Muralidhar V.
        • Zhao S.G.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer incidence across stage, NCCN risk groups, and age before and after USPSTF Grade D recommendations against prostate-specific antigen screening in 2012.
        Cancer. 2020; 126: 717-724
        • SEER
        ∗Explorer: an interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute.
        https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/
        Date accessed: March 1, 2021
        • Kavanagh B.
        Radiation oncology APM: why us? Why now?.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019; 105: 22-24
        • Graves N.
        • Wloch C.
        • Wilson J.
        • et al.
        A cost-effectiveness modelling study of strategies to reduce risk of infection following primary hip replacement based on a systematic review.
        Health Technol Assess. 2016; 20: 1-144
      2. Period life table, 2017. Social Security Administration.
        https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
        Date accessed: August 10, 2020
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Cohen J.T.
        • Weinstein M.C.
        Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 796-797
        • Husereau D.
        • Drummond M.
        • Petrou S.
        • et al.
        Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 14: 367-372
      3. Proton therapy vs. IMRT for low or intermediate risk prostate cancer (PARTIQoL). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01617161. ClinicalTrials.gov.
      4. A prospective comparative study of outcomes with proton and photon radiation in prostate cancer (COMPPARE). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03561220. ClinicalTrials.gov.
        • Yong J.H.
        • Beca J.
        • McGowan T.
        • Bremner K.E.
        • Warde P.
        • Hoch J.S.
        Cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in prostate cancer.
        Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012; 24: 521-531
        • Sher D.J.
        • Parikh R.B.
        • Mays-Jackson S.
        • Punglia R.S.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of SBRT versus IMRT for low-risk prostate cancer.
        Am J Clin Oncol. 2014; 37: 215-221