Cardiovascular events among patients with prostate cancer treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is growing concern about the adverse metabolic and cardiovascular effects of abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ), two standard hormonal therapies for prostate cancer. We analysed the risk of cardiovascular adverse events among patients treated with AA and ENZ. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used Kythera Medicare data from January 2019 to June 2023 to identify patients with at least one pharmacy claim for AA or ENZ. The index date was the first prescription claim date. Patients were required to have 1 year of data pre- and post-index date. New users excluded those with prior AA or ENZ claims and pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidities. Demographic and clinical variables, including age, socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidity score, prostate-specific comorbidities, and healthcare costs, were analysed . Propensity score matching was employed for risk adjustment. RESULTS: Of the 8,929 and 8,624 patients in the AA and ENZ cohorts, respectively, 7,647 were matched after adjusting for age, sociodemographic, and clinical factors. Between the matched cohorts (15.54% vs. 14.83%, p < 0.05), there were no statistically significant differences in any cardiovascular event after adjusting for these factors. The most common cardiovascular event in both cohorts was heart failure (5.20% vs. 4.49%), followed by atrial fibrillation (4.42% vs. 3.60%) and hypotension (2.93% vs. 2.48%). INTERPRETATION: This study provides real-world evidence of the cardiovascular risk of AA and ENZ that may not appear in clinical trial settings. Adjusting for age, baseline comorbidities, and SES, the likelihood of a cardiovascular event did not differ between treatment groups.

Microfluidics-Based Technologies for the Assessment of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer remains a significant clinical challenge, wherein patients display no response to existing hormone therapies. The standard of care often includes aggressive treatment options using chemotherapy, radiation therapy and various drugs to curb the growth of additional metastases. As such, there is a dire need for the development of innovative technologies for both its diagnosis and its management. Traditionally, scientific exploration of prostate cancer and its treatment options has been heavily reliant on animal models and two-dimensional (2D) in vitro technologies. However, both laboratory tools often fail to recapitulate the dynamic tumor microenvironment, which can lead to discrepancies in drug efficacy and side effects in a clinical setting. In light of the limitations of traditional animal models and 2D in vitro technologies, the emergence of microfluidics as a tool for prostate cancer research shows tremendous promise. Namely, microfluidics-based technologies have emerged as powerful tools for assessing prostate cancer cells, isolating circulating tumor cells, and examining their behaviour using tumor-on-a-chip models. As such, this review aims to highlight recent advancements in microfluidics-based technologies for the assessment of castration-resistant prostate cancer and its potential to advance current understanding and to improve therapeutic outcomes.

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of enzalutamide in comparison to abiraterone in treatment of metastatic prostate cancer resistant to castration in Iran.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, enzalutamide and abiraterone have been widely used as treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the cost-effectiveness of these drugs in Iran is unknown. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer resistant to castration in Iran. METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide and abiraterone from a social perspective over 10 years. The clinical inputs were obtained from the meta-analysis studies. The direct medical costs were obtained from the tariffs of the healthcare system, while the direct non-medical and indirect costs were collected from the patients. The data of utilities were derived from the literature. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainties. RESULTS: Compared with Abiraterone, enzalutamide was associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6,260 per QALY gained. According to the one-way sensitivity analysis, ICER was most heavily influenced by the prices of enzalutamide and Abiraterone, non-medical costs, and indirect costs. Regardless of the variation, enzalutamide remained cost-effective. The budget impact analysis of enzalutamide in the health system during 5 years was estimated at $6,362,127. CONCLUSIONS: At current prices, adding enzalutamide to pharmaceutical lists represents the cost-effective use of the healthcare resources in Iran for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Real-world economic burden of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer before and after first-line therapy initiation.

AIMS: To describe healthcare costs of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) initiating first-line (1 L) therapies from a US payer perspective. METHODS: Patients initiating a Flatiron oncologist-defined 1 L mCRPC therapy (index date) on or after mCRPC diagnosis were identified from linked electronic medical records/claims data from the Flatiron Metastatic Prostate Cancer (PC) Core Registry and Komodo's Healthcare Map. Patients were excluded if they initiated a clinical trial drug in 1 L, had <12 months of insurance eligibility prior to index, or no claims in Komodo's Healthcare Map for the Flatiron oncologist-defined index therapy. All-cause and PC-related total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM), including costs for services and procedures from medical claims (i.e. medical costs) and costs from pharmacy claims (i.e. pharmacy costs), were described in the 12-month baseline period before 1 L therapy initiation (including the baseline pre- and post- mCRPC progression periods) and during 1 L therapy (follow-up). RESULTS: Among 459 patients with mCRPC (mean age 70 years, 57% White, 16% Black, 45% commercially-insured, 43% Medicare Advantage-insured, and 12% Medicaid-insured), average baseline all-cause total costs (PPPM) were $4,576 ($4,166 pre-mCRPC progression, $8,278 post-mCRPC progression). Average baseline PC-related total costs were $2,935 ($2,537 pre-mCRPC progression, $6,661 post-mCRPC progression). During an average 1 L duration of 8.5 months, mean total costs were $13,746 (all-cause) and $12,061 (PC-related) PPPM. The cost increase following 1 L therapy initiation was driven by higher PC-related outpatient and pharmacy costs. PC-related medical costs PPPM increased from $1,504 during baseline to $5,585 following 1 L mCRPC therapy initiation. LIMITATIONS: All analyses were descriptive; statistical testing was not performed. CONCLUSION: Incremental costs of progression to mCRPC are significant, with the majority of costs driven by higher PC-related costs. Using contemporary data, this study highlights the importance of utilizing effective therapies that slow progression and reduce healthcare resource demands despite the initial investment in treatment costs.

Adverse events and costs among non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Limited real-world evidence exists on the economic burden of adverse events (AEs) to the healthcare system among patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with second-generation androgen receptor antagonists (ARAs). Current data is needed to understand real-world clinical event rates among ARAs and the cost of these events. OBJECTIVES: Describe the incidence of non-central nervous system (CNS)-related AEs and CNS-related AEs among nmCRPC patients treated in the United States with second-generation ARAs (apalutamide and enzalutamide) and evaluate healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for these patients. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective observational cohort study using claims data from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart to identify adult males with prostate cancer, castration, no metastases, and >1 claim for apalutamide or enzalutamide. The study was conducted from January 2017 to March 2020, with a patient index identification period from January 2018 to December 2019. AEs were classified as CNS-related or non-CNS-related. RESULTS: Of 605 patients (156 apalutamide and 449 enzalutamide), most were ≥65 years (94%) and had ≥1 non-CNS-related AE (55%). Many had ≥1 CNS-related AE (32%). Pain (12%) and arthralgia (11%) were the most frequently reported non-CNS-related AEs. Fatigue/asthenia (14%) and dizziness (7%) were the most frequently reported CNS-related AEs. Among patients with versus without non-CNS-related AEs, 34% versus 8% had emergency room (ER) events, and 25% versus 2% had inpatient events. Among patients with versus without CNS-related AEs, 41% versus 14% had ER events, and 38% versus 4% had inpatient events. Adjusted per-patient per-year cost (in 2020 USD) differences were significant between patients with and without non-CNS-related AEs ($30,765, p = 0.0018) and between patients with and without CNS-related AEs ($40,689, p = 0.0017). CONCLUSION: There is significant HCRU and cost burden among nmCRPC patients treated with ARAs developing AEs, highlighting the need for treatments with improved tolerability. Additional studies are warranted to include recently approved agents.

Radiobiological Assessment of Targeted Radionuclide Therapy with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-I&T in 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture Models.

In vitro therapeutic efficacy studies are commonly conducted in cell monolayers. However, three-dimensional (3D) tumor spheroids are known to better represent in vivo tumors. This study used [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-I&T, an already clinically applied radiopharmaceutical for targeted radionuclide therapy against metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, to demonstrate the differences in the radiobiological response between 2D and 3D cell culture models of the prostate cancer cell lines PC-3 (PSMA negative) and LNCaP (PSMA positive). After assessing the target expression in both models via Western Blot, cell viability, reproductive ability, and growth inhibition were assessed. To investigate the geometric effects on dosimetry for the 2D vs. 3D models, Monte Carlo simulations were performed. Our results showed that PSMA expression in LNCaP spheroids was highly preserved, and target specificity was shown in both models. In monolayers of LNCaP, no short-term (48 h after treatment), but only long-term (14 days after treatment) radiobiological effects were evident, showing decreased viability and reproductive ability with the increasing activity. Further, LNCaP spheroid growth was inhibited with the increasing activity. Overall, treatment efficacy was higher in LNCaP spheroids compared to monolayers, which can be explained by the difference in the resulting dose, among others.

Longitudinal assessment of plasma androgen receptor copy number predicts overall survival in subsequent treatment lines in castration-resistant prostate cancer: analysis from a prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Baseline plasma androgen-receptor copy number (AR-CN) is a promising biomarker for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) outcome and treatment response; however, the role of its longitudinal testing is unproven. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of AR-CN assessed before subsequent treatment lines in mCRPC patients. METHODS: A subgroup analysis of a prospective multicenter biomarker trial (IRSTB030) was carried out. Plasma AR-CN status (classified as normal or gain, cut-off value = 2) was assessed with digital PCR before each treatment line. RESULTS: Forty mCRPC patients receiving sequentially docetaxel, cabazitaxel and an AR signaling inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) were analyzed. At multivariate analysis, at each assessment overall survival (OS) was independently correlated with AR-CN status [first line: hazard ratio (HR) 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-10.5]; second line: HR 2.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.3); third line: HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.0-4.3)] and median prostate-specific antigen [first line: HR 4.4 (95% CI 1.8-10.9); second line: HR 3.4 (95% CI 1.6-7.2); third line: HR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2-5.6)]. In the three subsequent assessments, AR-CN status changed from normal to gain in 15 (38%) patients. These patients had longer OS (47 months) compared with patients presenting AR-CN gain from first assessment (36 months), but shorter than those maintaining normal AR-CN (69 months) (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma AR-CN correlates with survival not only at baseline (before first treatment), but also in the assessments before the following lines. Interestingly, AR-CN status may change from normal to gain across subsequent treatments in a significant number of cases, identifying a group of patients with intermediate outcomes. Longitudinal assessment of AR-CN status could represent a promising method to capture mCRPC intrinsic heterogeneity and to improve clinical management.

PSMA PET/CT for Response Assessment and Overall Survival Prediction in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors.

We aimed to evaluate the role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT for response assessment and outcome prediction in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs), including abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 30 ARPI-treated mCRPC patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT within 8 wk before (baseline) and 12 ± 4 wk after treatment initiation. Total PSMA tumor volume was calculated using the fixed threshold method (SUV ≥ 3). Patients were categorized as PSMA responders (PSMA-Rs) or PSMA nonresponders (PSMA-NRs) on the basis of both European Association of Urology/European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EAU/EANM) criteria and Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA PET/CT (RECIP) 1.0. PSMA-R included patients with a complete response, a partial response, or stable disease, and PSMA-NR included those with progressive disease. On the basis of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), patients were classified as biochemical responders if PSA decreased by at least 50% and as nonresponders if it did not. The Φ-coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation of PSMA- and PSA-based responses. Survival analysis was performed using the Cox regression hazard model and the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictive accuracy was tested for both response criteria. Results: On the basis of PSMA PET/CT, 13 (43%) patients were PSMA-NR according to the EAU/EANM criteria and 11 (37%) patients were PSMA-NR according to RECIP 1.0. Significant correlations were observed between PSMA- and PSA-based responses for both criteria (Φ = 0.79 and 0.66, respectively). After a median follow-up of 25 mo (interquartile range, 21-43 mo), the median overall survival was significantly longer for PSMA-R than PSMA-NR (54 vs. 22 mo) for both the EAU/EANM criteria and RECIP 1.0, with hazard ratios of 6.9 (95% CI, 1.9-26; P = 0.004) and 5.6 (95% CI, 1.69-18.26, P = 0.005), respectively. No significant difference in predictive accuracy was found between the 2 criteria (C-index, 0.79 vs. 0.76, respectively, P = 0.54). Flare phenomena at the second PSMA PET study were not observed in our cohort. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that PSMA PET/CT is a valuable imaging biomarker for response assessment and overall survival prediction when performed at 3 mo after ARPI treatment initiation in mCRPC patients. Both proposed PSMA response criteria (EAU/EANM and RECIP 1.0) seem to perform equally well. No PSMA flare was observed. Prospective validation of these findings is strongly needed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 treatments in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a public-payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Recently, several new treatment regimens have been approved for treating metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, building on androgen deprivation therapy alone. These include docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel. There are no validated predictive biomarkers for choosing a specific regimen. The goal of this study was to conduct a health economic outcome evaluation to determine the optimal treatment from the US public sector (Veterans Affairs). METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model in which metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients transitioned between 3 health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (7208 patients). The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost input parameters included initial and subsequent treatment costs and costs for terminal care and for managing grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events and were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature. RESULTS: Average 10-year costs ranged from $34 349 (androgen deprivation therapy) to $658 928 (darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy) and mean QALYs ranged from 3.25 (androgen deprivation therapy) to 4.57 (enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy). Treatment strategies docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy docetaxel, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, and darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy were eliminated because of dominance (ie, they were more costly and less effective than other strategies). Of the remaining strategies, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios = $21 247/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation model found abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy to be an optimal first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from a public (Veterans Affairs) payer perspective.

Treatment outcomes of radium-223 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: An experience before National Health Insurance reimbursement in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 (Ra-223), an α-particle-emitting isotope, inhibits bony metastases and prevents patients from skeletal-related events in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We retrospectively reviewed the treatment response, predictive factors, and adverse events (AEs) of Ra-223 before the National Health Insurance reimbursement in a Taiwanese tertiary institute. METHODS: Patients treated with Ra-223 before January 2019 were enrolled and categorized into progressive disease (PD) and clinical benefits (CB) groups. Laboratory data before and after the treatment were collected, and spider plots concerning percentage changes of alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were prepared and calculated statistically. CB/PD, baseline ALP, LDH, and PSA levels were also adopted as stratification factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 19 patients included, 5 (26.3%) and 14 (73.4%) belonged to the PD and CB groups, respectively, with no significant difference observed in the baseline laboratory data. The percentage changes in ALP, LDH, and PSA levels after Ra-223 treatment were statistically significant among the two groups (ALP: CB 54.3 ± 21.4% vs PD 77.6 ± 11.8%, p = 0.044; LDH: CB 88.2 ± 22.8% vs PD 138.3 ± 49.0%, p = 0.046; PSA: CB 97.8 ± 61.7% vs PD 277.0 ± 101.1%, p = 0.002). The trends of LDH between the two groups in spider plot were separated significantly. There were no differences in the AEs between the two groups. CB had a longer median OS than the PD group (20.50 months vs 9.43 months, p = 0.009). Patients with LDH <250 U/L at baseline tended to have longer OS but without significance. CONCLUSION: The CB rate of Ra-223 was 73.7%. No predictive factor for treatment response was obtained from pretreatment data. The mean percentage changes in ALP, LDH, and PSA levels compared with baseline significantly differed between the CB and PD groups, especially the LDH levels. The CB and PD groups showed different OS, with LDH levels exhibiting the potential to predict OS.

Treatment Patterns, Clinical Outcomes, Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs in Older Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in the United States: An Analysis of SEER-Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is more likely to develop in men ≥65 years old than in those <65 years old. This study aimed to generate real-world evidence on treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among older patients with metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A claims algorithm based on treatments expected for mCRPC was used to identify men ≥65 years old with mCRPC in the SEER-Medicare data between 2007 and 2019. The index date was defined as the date of the start of first-line therapy (1L). Treatment patterns and all-cause and PC-specific HCRU and costs were measured in the 12 months preindex period and the postindex follow-up period. Time to next treatment or death (TNTD) and overall survival (OS) were assessed in the follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 4758 patients met the eligibility criteria and received 1L treatment. Among these 1L patients, 57.4% subsequently received second-line (2L) treatment; among patients receiving 2L treatment, 49.3% subsequently received third-line (3L) treatment. Abiraterone, enzalutamide, and docetaxel were most common regimens in 1L (41.9%, 22.0%, 22.0%, respectively), 2L (33.3%, 32.7%, 13.6%, respectively), and 3L (17.9%, 25.1%, 22.3%, respectively). On average, patients had 1.2 inpatient admissions, 1.1 emergency room visits, and 27.6 outpatient visits per year during follow-up. The mean total all-cause and PC-related costs during the follow-up period were $111,060 and $99,540 per-patient-per-year, respectively. Median TNTD was 9.3, 6.5, and 5.7 months for 1L, 2L, and 3L, respectively. Median OS from the start of 1L treatment for mCRPC was 21.5 months. DISCUSSION: Among older patients with mCRPC, high attrition from 1L to subsequent lines of therapy was observed. Median TNTD was <1 year and median OS was <2 years. These results highlight a need to introduce more effective mCRPC therapies in 1L to improve clinical outcomes for older patients.

Eficacia y seguridad de enzalutamida en pacientes adultos con cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración metastásico, con progresión a quimioterapia basada en docetaxel, y tienen contraindicaciones al uso, o desarrollan reacciones adversas que lleven a la interrupción de acetato de abiraterona / Efficacy and safety of enzalutamide in adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, with progression to docetaxel-based chemotherapy, and have contraindications to use, or develop adverse reactions leading to discontinuation of abiraterone acetate

ANTECEDENTES En el marco de la metodología ad hoc para evaluar solicitudes de tecnologías sanitarias, aprobada mediante Resolución de Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación N° 111-IETSI-ESSALUD-2021 y ampliada mediante Resolución de Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación N° 97-IETSI-ESSALUD2022, se ha elaborado el presente dictamen, el cual expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de enzalutamida en pacientes adultos con cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración metastásico, con progresión a quimioterapia basada en docetaxel e intolerantes a acetato de abiraterona. Así, el Dr. Nelson Cuevas Muñoz, médico especialista en oncología del Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins (HNERM), siguiendo la Directiva N° 003-IETSI-ESSALUD-2016, envió a través del comité farmacoterapéutico del Hospital HNERM al Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI la solicitud de autorización de uso del producto farmacéutico enzalutamida no incluido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud. ASPECTOS GENERALES: El cáncer de próstata (CP) es el segundo cáncer más frecuente en hombres a nivel mundial y el más frecuente en Perú; registrándose 30.7 y 44.3 casos nuevos por cada 100 000 hombres en el 2020, respectivamente (GLOBOCAN [Internet] 2022). Asimismo, en el mismo año, se registró más de 375 000 muertes por CP en el mundo y 2433 muertes por CP en el Perú, representando así la segunda causa de muerte por cáncer en la población peruana (GLOBOCAN [Internet] 2022). El tratamiento sistémico de primera línea para el CP en estadios avanzados es la terapia de deprivación de andrógenos (Dawson y Leger 2022). Entre el 10 % y 27 % progresa a esta terapia, y el estado de la enfermedad se conoce como CP resistente a la castración (CPRC) (Bretoni, Ferrario, y Foglia 2019; Colloca et al. 2016). Aproximadamente, más del 70 % de pacientes con CPRC tienen CPRC metastásico (CPRCm) (Bretoni, Ferrario, y Foglia 2019). METODOLOGÍA: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva con el objetivo de identificar la mejor evidencia sobre la eficacia y seguridad de enzalutamida en pacientes adultos con CPRCm, con progresión a quimioterapia basada en docetaxel e intolerantes a AA. La búsqueda bibliográfica se realizó en las bases de datos PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science y LILACS. Asimismo, se realizó una búsqueda manual dentro de las páginas web pertenecientes a grupos que realizan evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC) incluyendo el National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), el Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), el Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). el Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG por sus siglas en alemán), la International Database of GRADE Guideline, el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC), la Guidelines International Network (GIN), el National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), la Cancer Guidelines Database, el New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), el Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS), el Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS), la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA), la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el Ministerio de Salud del Perú (MINSA) y el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación (IETSI). Además, se realizó una búsqueda de GPC de las principales sociedades o instituciones especializadas en oncología o urología, tales como: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), la Cancer Council Australia (CCA), la European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), la American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM), la European Association of Urology (EAU) y la American Urological Association (AUA). Finalmente, se realizó una búsqueda en la página web de registro de ensayos clínicos (EC) www.clinicaltrials.gov, para identificar EC en curso o que no hayan sido publicados aún. RESULTADOS: Luego de la búsqueda bibliográfica hasta mayo de 2023, se identificaron cinco GPC elaboradas por la NCCN (NCCN 2022), la ESMO (Parker et al. 2020), la EAU (EAU 2022a), la SEOM (González del Alba et al. 2021) y la ASCO (Basch et al. 2014), y un ECA denominados AFFIRM (Scher et al. 2012). CONCLUSIÓN: Por lo expuesto, el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación aprueba el uso de enzalutamida para pacientes adultos con CPRCm, con progresión a quimioterapia basada en docetaxel, con contraindicaciones al uso, o desarrollo de reacciones adversas que lleven a la interrupción, de AA, como producto farmacéutico no incluido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud, según lo establecido en el Anexo N° 1. La vigencia del presente dictamen preliminar es de un año a partir de la fecha de publicación. Así, la continuación de dicha aprobación estará sujeta a la evaluación de los resultados obtenidos y de mayor evidencia que pueda surgir en el tiempo.

Understanding Prescribing Differences Between Urologists and Medical Oncologists in the Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The availability of oral therapies for advanced prostate cancer allows urologists to continue to care for their patients who develop castration resistance. We compared the prescribing practices of urologists and medical oncologists in treating this patient population. METHODS: The Medicare Part D Prescribers data sets were utilized to identify urologists and medical oncologists who prescribed enzalutamide and/or abiraterone from 2013 to 2019. Each physician was assigned to one of 2 groups: enzalutamide prescriber (physicians that wrote more 30-day prescriptions for enzalutamide than abiraterone) or abiraterone prescriber (opposite). We ran a generalized linear regression to determine factors influencing prescribing preference. RESULTS: In 2019, 4,664 physicians met our inclusion criteria: 23.4% (1,090/4,664) urologists and 76.6% (3,574/4,664) medical oncologists. Urologists were more likely to be enzalutamide prescribers (OR 4.91, CI 4.22-5.74, P < .001) and this held in all regions. Urologists with greater than 60 prescriptions of either drug were not shown to be enzalutamide prescribers (OR 1.18, CI 0.83-1.66, P = .349); 37.9% (5,702/15,062) of abiraterone fills by urologists were for generic compared to 62.5% (57,949/92,741) of abiraterone fills by medical oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: There are dramatic prescribing differences between urologists and medical oncologists. A greater understanding of these differences is a health care imperative.

Real-World Treatment Trends Among Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from an International Study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation non-steroidal antiandrogen was previously the standard-of-care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) or taxane chemotherapy is now approved and guideline-recommended for these patients. METHODS: Physician-reported data on adult patients with mCSPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme were analyzed descriptively. We evaluated real-world treatment trends for patients with mCSPC in 5 European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the United States (US), looking at differences between patients initiating treatment in 2016-2018 and in 2019-2020. We also investigated treatment trends by ethnicity and insurance status in the US. RESULTS: This study found that most patients with mCSPC do not receive treatment intensification. However, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT and taxane chemotherapy was observed in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 across 5 European countries. In the US, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 was observed for all ethnicity groups and those with Medicare and commercial insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: As the number of patients with mCSPC who receive treatment intensification increases, more patients who progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have been exposed to intensified treatments. Treatment options for patients with mCSPC and mCRPC overlap, suggesting that an unmet need will emerge for new therapies. Further studies are needed to understand optimal treatment sequencing in mCSPC and mCRPC.

A retrospective study on the incidence, management and risk factors of skin rash in patients with advanced prostate cancer in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, prostate cancer (PC) is the second most diagnosed cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death in men. Hormonal therapies, commonly used for PC, are associated with a range of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The population from Japan seems to be at higher risk of developing TEAEs of skin rash compared to the overall global population. This study was conducted to get a better insight into the incidence, management, and risk factors for skin rash during active treatment for advanced PC in Japan. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of PC patients was identified and subsequently categorized, into non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (nmCRPC and mCRPC), and metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer patients (mCNPC). The analysis was based on a dataset from the Medical Data Vision (MDV) database. Descriptive statistics were determined, and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to the associated risk factors for the onset of rash. RESULTS: Overall, 1,738 nmCRPC patients, 630 mCRPC patients, and 454 mCNPC patients were included in this analysis. The median age was 78 years old and similar across the three cohorts. The skin rash incidence was 19.97% for nmCRPC cohort, 28.89% for mCRPC cohort, and 28.85% for mCNPC cohort. The median duration of skin rash ranged from 29 to 42 days. Statistically significant risk factors for developing skin rash included a history of allergy or hypersensitivity (all cohorts), increased age (nmCRPC and mCRPC), a body mass index (BMI) of < 18.5 (nmCRPC and mCRPC), and a PSA level higher than the median (nmCRPC). Skin rash was commonly managed with systemic and topical corticosteroids which ranged from 41.76% to 67.03% for all cohorts. Antihistamines were infrequently used. CONCLUSION: This study provides a better understanding of the real-world incidence, onset, duration, management and risk factors of skin rash in patients on active PC treatment in Japan. It was observed that approximately 20-30% of PC patients experience skin rash. Development of skin rash was associated with previous allergy or hypersensitivity, BMI of < 18.5, increased age and higher PSA levels, and was usually treated with corticosteroids.

Costs of radium-223 and the pharmacy preparation 177Lu-PSMA-I&T for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Dutch hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The radiopharmaceuticals radium-223 and the pharmacy preparation 177Lu-PSMA-I&T are reimbursed in the Netherlands for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment. Although shown to be life-prolonging in patients with mCRPC, the treatment procedures associated with these radiopharmaceuticals can be challenging for both patients and hospitals. This study investigates the costs of mCRPC treatment in Dutch hospitals for currently reimbursed radiopharmaceuticals with a demonstrated overall survival benefit. METHODS: A cost model that calculated the direct medical per-patient costs of radium-223 and 177Lu-PSMA-I&T was developed, following clinical trial regimens. The model considered six 4-weekly administrations (i.e. ALSYMPCA regimen) of radium-223. Regarding 177Lu-PSMA-I&T, the model used both the VISION regimen (i.e. five 6-weekly administrations) and the SPLASH regimen (i.e. four 8-weekly administrations). Based on health insurance claims, we also estimated the coverage a hospital would receive for providing treatment. No fitting health insurance claim for 177Lu-PSMA-I&T is currently available; therefore, we calculated a break-even value for a potential health insurance claim that would exactly counterbalance the per-patient costs and coverage. RESULTS: Radium-223 administration is associated with per-patient costs of €30,905, and these costs are fully covered by the coverage a hospital receives. The per-patient costs of 177Lu-PSMA-I&T range between €35,866 and €47,546 per administration period, depending on the regimen. Current healthcare insurance claims do not fully cover the costs of providing 177Lu-PSMA-I&T: hospitals must pay €4,414-€4,922 for each patient out of their own budget. The break-even value for the potential insurance claim covering 177Lu-PSMA-I&T administration with a VISION (SPLASH) regimen is €1,073 (€1,215). CONCLUSION: This study shows that, without consideration of the treatment effect, radium-223 treatment for mCRPC leads to lower per-patient costs than treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-I&T. The detailed overview of the costs associated with radiopharmaceutical treatment provided by this study is relevant for both hospitals and healthcare insurers.

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer among men in the Netherlands, and its treatment is increasingly expensive. Given the limited hospital budget, it is important to consider costs in the treatment of prostate cancer. Radiopharmaceuticals are one of the multiple treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer. The current study looked at the costs of two radiopharmaceuticals, radium-223 and 177Lu-PSMA-I&T, while using multiple treatment regimens.The cost of radium-223 treatment is €30,905 per patient and is fully covered by insurance. The cost of 177Lu-PSMA-I&T treatment ranges from €35,866 to €47,546 per patient and is partially paid from the budget of the hospitals considering current reimbursement amounts. The study shows that, without consideration of the treatment effects, radium-223 treatment for prostate cancer leads to lower per-patient costs than treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-I&T. The detailed overview of the costs associated with radiopharmaceutical treatment provided by this study is relevant for both hospitals and healthcare insurers to manage prostate cancer treatment costs.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 177Lu-PSMA-617 Radioligand Therapy in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer poses a therapeutic challenge with poor prognosis. The VISION trial showed prolonged progression-free and overall survival in patients treated with lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (177Lu-PSMA-617) radioligand therapy compared with using the standard of care (SoC) alone. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-PSMA-617 treatment compared with SoC therapy. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed using data from the VISION trial, which included overall and progression-free survival and treatment regimens for 177Lu-PSMA-617 and SoC. Treatment costs, utilities for health states, and adverse events were derived from public databases and the literature. Because 177Lu-PSMA-617 was only recently approved, costs for treatment were extrapolated from 177Lu-DOTATATE. Outcome measurements included the incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a healthcare system perspective over the lifetime horizon of 60 months. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set to $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The 177Lu-PSMA-617 group was estimated to gain 0.42 incremental QALYs. Treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-617 led to an increase in costs compared with SoC ($169,110 vs $85,398). The incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio for 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy was $200,708/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the model regarding various parameters, which remained cost-effective at all lower and upper parameter bounds. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations, therapy using 177Lu-PSMA-617 was determined as the cost-effective strategy in 37.14% of all iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $200,000/QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-617 was estimated to add a notable clinical benefit over SoC alone. Based on the model results, radioligand therapy represents a treatment strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with cost-effectiveness in certain scenarios.

Medication Payments by Insurers and Patients for the Treatment of Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The implications of high prices for cancer drugs on health care costs and patients' financial burdens are a growing concern. Patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are often candidates for multiple first-line systemic therapies with similar impacts on life expectancy. However, little is known about the gross and out-of-pocket (OOP) payments associated with each of these drugs for patients with employer-sponsored health insurance. We therefore aimed to determine the gross and OOP payments of first-line drugs for mCRPC and how the payments vary across drugs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 4,298 patients with prostate cancer who initiated therapy with one of six drugs approved for first-line treatment of mCRPC between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019. We compared gross and OOP payments during the 6 months after initiation of treatment for mCRPC using private payer claims data across patients using different first-line drugs. RESULTS: Gross payments varied across drugs. Over the 6 months after the index prescription, mean unadjusted gross drug payments were highest for patients receiving sipuleucel-T ($115,525 USD) and lowest for patients using docetaxel ($12,804 USD). OOP payments were lower than gross drug payments; mean 6-month OOP payments were highest for cabazitaxel ($1,044 USD) and lowest for docetaxel ($296 USD). There was a wide distribution of OOP payments within drug types. CONCLUSION: Drugs for mCRPC are expensive with large differences in payments by drug type. OOP payments among patients with employer-sponsored health insurance are much lower than gross drug payments, and they vary both across and within first-line drug types, with some patients making very high OOP payments. Although lowering drug prices would reduce pharmaceutical spending for patients with mCRPC, decreasing patient financial burden requires understanding an individual patient's benefit design.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Darolutamide Combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Patients with High-Risk Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in China.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing incidence of prostate cancer (PC) in China leads to a significant disease burden. Although three novel androgen inhibitors (darolutamide, apalutamide, and enzalutamide) have been approved for patients with high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), the economic evaluation of these novel treatments in China remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of darolutamide combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), comparing with apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT, in patients with high-risk nmCRPC from a healthcare system perspective in China. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to capture time spent by patients in three health states: nmCRPC, metastatic CRPC (mCRPC), and death. Clinical outcomes from the ARAMIS, PROSPER, and SPARTAN studies were obtained. In the absence of head-to-head studies, indirect treatment comparisons were conducted to capture the comparative effectiveness between darolutamide + ADT, apalutamide + ADT, and enzalutamide + ADT. The prices of apalutamide and enzalutamide were assumed to be the same as the initial launch price of darolutamide, since post-negotiation prices after national reimbursement drug list (NRDL) inclusion remain confidential. Other health resources costs, baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and utility were collected through literature or clinical expert interviews. Selected sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: For a 20-year time horizon, darolutamide + ADT was associated with lower cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT (202,897 Chinese yuan (CNY)/QALY vs. 228,998 CNY/QALY and 221,409 CNY/QALY, respectively) (exchange rate, 1 USD = 6.7871 CNY). Darolutamide + ADT had better health outcomes and lower total costs compared to both apalutamide + ADT (+ 0.22 QALYs and - 72,818 CNY) and enzalutamide + ADT (+ 0.09 QALYs and - 67,451 CNY). Across the modelled sensitivity analyses (including hazard ratios and drug costs), darolutamide + ADT remained dominant or cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation suggested that, in comparison with apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT, darolutamide + ADT was a dominant or cost-effective treatment option for patients with high-risk nmCRPC in China.