Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

Standard

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review. / Grochtdreis, Thomas; König, Hans-Helmut; Dobruschkin, Alexander; von Amsberg, Gunhild; Dams, Judith.

In: PLOS ONE, Vol. 13, No. 12, 05.12.2018, p. e0208063.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{8b80daa7a3a9424f8096f1cc6d8aa763,
title = "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.RESULTS: In total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Thomas Grochtdreis and Hans-Helmut K{\"o}nig and Alexander Dobruschkin and {von Amsberg}, Gunhild and Judith Dams",
year = "2018",
month = dec,
day = "5",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0208063",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "e0208063",
journal = "PLOS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

AU - Grochtdreis, Thomas

AU - König, Hans-Helmut

AU - Dobruschkin, Alexander

AU - von Amsberg, Gunhild

AU - Dams, Judith

PY - 2018/12/5

Y1 - 2018/12/5

N2 - BACKGROUND: Treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.RESULTS: In total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

AB - BACKGROUND: Treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.RESULTS: In total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0208063

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0208063

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 30517165

VL - 13

SP - e0208063

JO - PLOS ONE

JF - PLOS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 12

ER -