Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Monitoring Abiraterone Levels in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients

ObjectivesAbiraterone acetate is registered for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive and resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment outcome is associated with plasma trough concentrations (C_min) of abiraterone. Patients with a plasma C_min below the target of 8.4 ng/mL may benefit from treatment optimization by dose increase or concomitant intake with food. This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of monitoring abiraterone C_min in patients with mCRPC.MethodsA Markov model was built with health states progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death. The benefits of monitoring abiraterone C_min followed by a dose increase or food intervention were modeled via a difference in the percentage of patients achieving adequate C_min taking a healthcare payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainties and their impac to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsMonitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase resulted in 0.149 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with €22 145 incremental costs and an ICER of €177 821/QALY. The food intervention assumed equal effects and estimated incremental costs of €7599, resulting in an ICER of €61 019/QALY. The likelihoods of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with a dose increase or food intervention being cost-effective were 8.04%and 81.9%, respectively.ConclusionsMonitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase is not cost-effective in patients with mCRPC from a healthcare payer perspective. Monitoring in combination with a food intervention is likely to be cost-effective. This cost-effectiveness assessment may assist decision making in future integration of abiraterone TDM followed by a food intervention into standard abiraterone acetate treatment practices of mCRPC patients.     

Resisting resistance: Establishing new treatment options for CRPC patients

Overcoming drug resistance in castrate resistant prostate cancer requires improved understanding of mechanisms by which resistance occurs, as well as new treatment options. A recent study published in Nature (Li et al. 2015) examines the mechanism of abiraterone activity, and reveals the bioactivity of a breakdown product with exciting repercussions for therapy regimes.     

Androgen receptor in salivary gland carcinoma: A review of an old marker as a possible new target

The role of the androgen receptor (AR) as an immunomarker for diagnosis of salivary gland duct carcinoma (SDC) is well known. Other non‐squamous cell head and neck cancers (NSCC‐HN), including a small subset of salivary gland cancers (SGCs), can also express AR. With the increase in effective and powerful new generation of anti‐androgen agents and drugs administered orally, more targetable AR‐driven NSCC‐HN, such as subsets of SGCs, should be investigated for possible expression of AR. In this review, we focus on SGC subtypes, which could express AR and describe the main androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) strategies.     

Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

The management of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been significantly modified by the availability of innovative but expensive treatments, increasing the economic burden of prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and review published economic evaluations (EEs) related to the treatment of mHSPC and assess their quality. A systematic search was performed of the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Three reviewers independently selected EEs by defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. They extracted all data from each EE (general information, study population, data about the EE, interventions and comparators, and outcomes). They also assessed the quality of the selected EEs according to Drummond's checklist. Fourteen EEs published between 2016 and 2021 were eligible for the systematic review. The EEs found ADT + docetaxel to be the most cost-effective of all available treatments as a first-line strategy for mHSPC (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide). Five EEs showed that a simple price reduction of abiraterone acetate of 50% to 75% could change the results to render this treatment also cost-effective relative to that with docetaxel. Twelve EEs were of high quality, with a Drummond score ≥ 7. Analysis of the 14 EEs identified by our systematic review, amongst which 78.6% met high quality standards, showed that ADT + docetaxel tends to be the most cost-effective alternative for mHSPC. These results were assessed by sensitivity analysis. The data provided by this systematic review help to provide a better understanding of these treatments and the better use of healthcare resources.