Wong Sarah E, Everest Louis, Jiang Di M, Saluja Ronak, Chan Kelvin K W, Sridhar Srikala S
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Feb;16(2):e201-e210. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00421. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
As novel hormonal therapies, such as abiraterone and enzalutamide, move into earlier stages of treatment of advanced prostate cancer, there are significant cost implications. We used the ASCO Value Framework (AVF) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to quantify and compare the incremental clinical benefit and costs of these agents in the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) settings.
We searched PubMed for randomized phase III trials of abiraterone and enzalutamide in mCRPC and mCSPC. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified using the AVF and ESMO-MCBS by 2 independent assessors. Incremental drug costs were calculated using average wholesale prices (AWPs) from the RED BOOK Online.
In mCRPC, 2 abiraterone trials (COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302) and 2 enzalutamide trials (AFFIRM and PREVAIL) met search criteria. AVF scores ranged from 46.3 to 66.6, suggesting clinical benefit; ESMO-MCBS scores ranged from 3 to 5, with lower clinical benefit in the mCRPC predocetaxel setting. The overall incremental AWP ranged from $83,460.94 to $205,128.85. In mCSPC, 4 trials met criteria (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE, ENZAMET, and ARCHES; AVF scores were 79.8, 33.3, 59, and 17, respectively). All of the studies showed benefit except ARCHES. By ESMO-MCBS, both LATITUDE and STAMPEDE showed benefit (score for 4 for both studies); ENZAMET and ARCHES were not evaluable. The overall cost of treatment was significantly higher in the mCSPC setting.
The AVF and ESMO-MCBS frameworks generated slightly different results but suggested that abiraterone and enzalutamide show clinical benefit in both mCRPC and mCSPC but trended to lower clinical benefit and increased costs in earlier disease stages. Further refinement of the AVF and ESMO-MCBS is needed to facilitate their use and their ability to inform clinical practice in a rapidly changing treatment landscape.
随着阿比特龙和恩杂鲁胺等新型激素疗法进入晚期前列腺癌治疗的早期阶段,成本影响巨大。我们使用美国临床肿瘤学会价值框架(AVF)和欧洲医学肿瘤学会临床获益程度量表(MCBS)来量化和比较这些药物在转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌(mCRPC)和转移性去势敏感性前列腺癌(mCSPC)环境中的增量临床获益和成本。
我们在PubMed上搜索了阿比特龙和恩杂鲁胺在mCRPC和mCSPC中的随机III期试验。由2名独立评估人员使用AVF和ESMO - MCBS对增量临床获益进行量化。使用《红皮书在线》中的平均批发价格(AWP)计算增量药物成本。
在mCRPC中,2项阿比特龙试验(COU - AA - 301和COU - AA - 302)和2项恩杂鲁胺试验(AFFIRM和PREVAIL)符合搜索标准。AVF评分范围为46.3至66.6,表明有临床获益;ESMO - MCBS评分范围为3至5,在mCRPC多西他赛治疗前阶段临床获益较低。总体增量AWP范围为83,460.94美元至205,128.85美元。在mCSPC中,4项试验符合标准(LATITUDE、STAMPEDE、ENZAMET和ARCHES;AVF评分分别为79.8、33.3、59和17)。除ARCHES外,所有研究均显示有获益。根据ESMO - MCBS,LATITUDE和STAMPEDE均显示有获益(两项研究评分均为4);ENZAMET和ARCHES无法评估。mCSPC环境中的总体治疗成本显著更高。
AVF和ESMO - MCBS框架产生的结果略有不同,但表明阿比特龙和恩杂鲁胺在mCRPC和mCSPC中均显示有临床获益,但在疾病早期阶段临床获益有降低趋势且成本增加。需要对AVF和ESMO - MCBS进行进一步完善,以促进其在快速变化的治疗格局中用于临床实践并为临床实践提供信息的能力。