Svatek Robert S, Lee J Jack, Roehrborn Claus G, Lippman Scott M, Lotan Yair
Department of Urology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9110, USA.
Cancer. 2008 Mar 1;112(5):1058-65. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23276.
The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) demonstrated that finasteride reduces the prevalence of prostate cancer by 24.8% (risk reduction) but questions remain regarding the cost-effectiveness of widespread utilization. The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chemoprevention utilizing a quality-of-life adjustment.
A Markov decision analysis model with probabilistic sensitivity analysis was designed to determine the lifetime prostate health-related costs, beginning at age 50 years, for men treated with finasteride compared with placebo. Model assumptions were based on data from the PCPT; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results program; literature review of costs, utilities, and transition rates among various prostate cancer health states; and local institutional cost data.
The quality-adjusted cost-effectiveness ratio for finasteride compared with men not receiving chemoprevention was $122,747 (in U.S.$) per quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYs). If finasteride is assumed to not increase the incidence of high-grade tumors, the quality-adjusted cost-effectiveness ratio was $112,062 per QALYs. Sensitivity analysis found that chemoprevention of prostate cancer with an agent that has no effect on the prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia can render a cost-effectiveness ratio of <$50,000 per QALYs saved when applied to a high-risk population associated with a 25% risk reduction, and a cost of $30 per month.
Finasteride is unlikely to be cost-effective when considering the impact on survival differences among treated versus untreated groups. However, chemoprevention may be cost-effective in high-risk populations when taking into consideration adjustments for the impact on quality of life.
前列腺癌预防试验(PCPT)表明,非那雄胺可使前列腺癌患病率降低24.8%(风险降低),但对于广泛使用的成本效益仍存在疑问。当前分析的目的是评估采用生活质量调整的化学预防的成本效益。
设计了一个带有概率敏感性分析的马尔可夫决策分析模型,以确定从50岁开始,接受非那雄胺治疗的男性与接受安慰剂治疗的男性相比,终生前列腺健康相关成本。模型假设基于PCPT的数据;监测、流行病学和最终结果计划;对各种前列腺癌健康状态之间的成本、效用和转移率的文献综述;以及当地机构成本数据。
与未接受化学预防的男性相比,非那雄胺的质量调整成本效益比为每挽救一个质量调整生命年(QALY)122,747美元(以美元计)。如果假设非那雄胺不会增加高级别肿瘤的发病率,则质量调整成本效益比为每QALY 112,062美元。敏感性分析发现,使用对良性前列腺增生患病率无影响的药物进行前列腺癌化学预防,应用于风险降低25%且每月成本为30美元的高危人群时,成本效益比可<每挽救一个QALY 50,000美元。
考虑到对治疗组与未治疗组生存差异的影响,非那雄胺不太可能具有成本效益。然而,考虑到对生活质量影响的调整,化学预防在高危人群中可能具有成本效益。