Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: Based on a Canadian randomized tial with palliative end points

D. J. Bloomfield, M. D. Krahn, T. Neogi, T. Panzarella, Thomas J Smith, P. Warde, A. R. Willan, S. Ernst, M. J. Moore, A. Neville, I. F. Tannock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the economic consequences of the use of chemotherapy in patients with symptomatic hormone resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) in the context of a previously published Canadian open-label, phase III, randomized trial with palliative end points. Patients and Methods: The trial randomized 161 patients to initial treatment with mitoxantrone and prednisone (M + P) or to prednisone alone (P) and showed better polliation with M + P. There was no significant difference in survival. A detailed retrospective chart review was performed of resources used from randomization until death of 114 of 161 patients enrolled at the three largest centers: thse included hospital admissions, outpatient visits, investigations, therapies (which included all chemotherapy and radiation), and palliative care. Cancer center and community hospital costs were calculated by using the hotel approximation method and case costing from the Ontario Case Cost Project, respectively. Cost-utility analysis was performed by transforming the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ- C30 global quality-of-life item in measured ever 3 weeks on trial to an estiamte of utility, and extending the last knwon value through to death or last follow-up. Results: The mean total cost until death or last follow-up by intention-to-treat was M + P CDN $27,300; P CDN $29,000. The 95% confidence intervals on the observed cost difference ranged from a saving of $9,200 for M + P (with palliative benefit) to an increased cost of $5,800 for M + P. The major proprotion of cost (M + P 53% v P 66%; CDN $14,500 v $19,100) was for impatient care. Initial M + P was consistently less expensive in whichever time period was used to compare costs. Cost-utility analysis showed M + P be the prefereed strategy with an upper 95% confidence interval for the incremental cost-utility ratio of CDN $19,700 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conclusion: A treatment that reduces symptoms and improves quality of life has the potential to reduce costs in other areas. Economic factors should not influence the clinical decision as to whether to use M + P in a symptomatic patient.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2272-2279
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume16
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mitoxantrone
Prednisone
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Prostatic Neoplasms
Hormones
Costs and Cost Analysis
Drug Therapy
Economics
Quality of Life
Confidence Intervals
Cancer Care Facilities
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Hospital Costs
Community Hospital
Ontario
Therapeutics
Random Allocation
Palliative Care
Outpatients
Organizations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer : Based on a Canadian randomized tial with palliative end points. / Bloomfield, D. J.; Krahn, M. D.; Neogi, T.; Panzarella, T.; Smith, Thomas J; Warde, P.; Willan, A. R.; Ernst, S.; Moore, M. J.; Neville, A.; Tannock, I. F.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 16, No. 6, 06.1998, p. 2272-2279.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bloomfield, DJ, Krahn, MD, Neogi, T, Panzarella, T, Smith, TJ, Warde, P, Willan, AR, Ernst, S, Moore, MJ, Neville, A & Tannock, IF 1998, 'Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: Based on a Canadian randomized tial with palliative end points', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 2272-2279.
Bloomfield, D. J. ; Krahn, M. D. ; Neogi, T. ; Panzarella, T. ; Smith, Thomas J ; Warde, P. ; Willan, A. R. ; Ernst, S. ; Moore, M. J. ; Neville, A. ; Tannock, I. F. / Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer : Based on a Canadian randomized tial with palliative end points. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1998 ; Vol. 16, No. 6. pp. 2272-2279.
@article{0ceb738e8125495086fa6b7f9c3c53db,
title = "Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: Based on a Canadian randomized tial with palliative end points",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the economic consequences of the use of chemotherapy in patients with symptomatic hormone resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) in the context of a previously published Canadian open-label, phase III, randomized trial with palliative end points. Patients and Methods: The trial randomized 161 patients to initial treatment with mitoxantrone and prednisone (M + P) or to prednisone alone (P) and showed better polliation with M + P. There was no significant difference in survival. A detailed retrospective chart review was performed of resources used from randomization until death of 114 of 161 patients enrolled at the three largest centers: thse included hospital admissions, outpatient visits, investigations, therapies (which included all chemotherapy and radiation), and palliative care. Cancer center and community hospital costs were calculated by using the hotel approximation method and case costing from the Ontario Case Cost Project, respectively. Cost-utility analysis was performed by transforming the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ- C30 global quality-of-life item in measured ever 3 weeks on trial to an estiamte of utility, and extending the last knwon value through to death or last follow-up. Results: The mean total cost until death or last follow-up by intention-to-treat was M + P CDN $27,300; P CDN $29,000. The 95{\%} confidence intervals on the observed cost difference ranged from a saving of $9,200 for M + P (with palliative benefit) to an increased cost of $5,800 for M + P. The major proprotion of cost (M + P 53{\%} v P 66{\%}; CDN $14,500 v $19,100) was for impatient care. Initial M + P was consistently less expensive in whichever time period was used to compare costs. Cost-utility analysis showed M + P be the prefereed strategy with an upper 95{\%} confidence interval for the incremental cost-utility ratio of CDN $19,700 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conclusion: A treatment that reduces symptoms and improves quality of life has the potential to reduce costs in other areas. Economic factors should not influence the clinical decision as to whether to use M + P in a symptomatic patient.",
author = "Bloomfield, {D. J.} and Krahn, {M. D.} and T. Neogi and T. Panzarella and Smith, {Thomas J} and P. Warde and Willan, {A. R.} and S. Ernst and Moore, {M. J.} and A. Neville and Tannock, {I. F.}",
year = "1998",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "2272--2279",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer

T2 - Based on a Canadian randomized tial with palliative end points

AU - Bloomfield, D. J.

AU - Krahn, M. D.

AU - Neogi, T.

AU - Panzarella, T.

AU - Smith, Thomas J

AU - Warde, P.

AU - Willan, A. R.

AU - Ernst, S.

AU - Moore, M. J.

AU - Neville, A.

AU - Tannock, I. F.

PY - 1998/6

Y1 - 1998/6

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the economic consequences of the use of chemotherapy in patients with symptomatic hormone resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) in the context of a previously published Canadian open-label, phase III, randomized trial with palliative end points. Patients and Methods: The trial randomized 161 patients to initial treatment with mitoxantrone and prednisone (M + P) or to prednisone alone (P) and showed better polliation with M + P. There was no significant difference in survival. A detailed retrospective chart review was performed of resources used from randomization until death of 114 of 161 patients enrolled at the three largest centers: thse included hospital admissions, outpatient visits, investigations, therapies (which included all chemotherapy and radiation), and palliative care. Cancer center and community hospital costs were calculated by using the hotel approximation method and case costing from the Ontario Case Cost Project, respectively. Cost-utility analysis was performed by transforming the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ- C30 global quality-of-life item in measured ever 3 weeks on trial to an estiamte of utility, and extending the last knwon value through to death or last follow-up. Results: The mean total cost until death or last follow-up by intention-to-treat was M + P CDN $27,300; P CDN $29,000. The 95% confidence intervals on the observed cost difference ranged from a saving of $9,200 for M + P (with palliative benefit) to an increased cost of $5,800 for M + P. The major proprotion of cost (M + P 53% v P 66%; CDN $14,500 v $19,100) was for impatient care. Initial M + P was consistently less expensive in whichever time period was used to compare costs. Cost-utility analysis showed M + P be the prefereed strategy with an upper 95% confidence interval for the incremental cost-utility ratio of CDN $19,700 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conclusion: A treatment that reduces symptoms and improves quality of life has the potential to reduce costs in other areas. Economic factors should not influence the clinical decision as to whether to use M + P in a symptomatic patient.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the economic consequences of the use of chemotherapy in patients with symptomatic hormone resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) in the context of a previously published Canadian open-label, phase III, randomized trial with palliative end points. Patients and Methods: The trial randomized 161 patients to initial treatment with mitoxantrone and prednisone (M + P) or to prednisone alone (P) and showed better polliation with M + P. There was no significant difference in survival. A detailed retrospective chart review was performed of resources used from randomization until death of 114 of 161 patients enrolled at the three largest centers: thse included hospital admissions, outpatient visits, investigations, therapies (which included all chemotherapy and radiation), and palliative care. Cancer center and community hospital costs were calculated by using the hotel approximation method and case costing from the Ontario Case Cost Project, respectively. Cost-utility analysis was performed by transforming the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ- C30 global quality-of-life item in measured ever 3 weeks on trial to an estiamte of utility, and extending the last knwon value through to death or last follow-up. Results: The mean total cost until death or last follow-up by intention-to-treat was M + P CDN $27,300; P CDN $29,000. The 95% confidence intervals on the observed cost difference ranged from a saving of $9,200 for M + P (with palliative benefit) to an increased cost of $5,800 for M + P. The major proprotion of cost (M + P 53% v P 66%; CDN $14,500 v $19,100) was for impatient care. Initial M + P was consistently less expensive in whichever time period was used to compare costs. Cost-utility analysis showed M + P be the prefereed strategy with an upper 95% confidence interval for the incremental cost-utility ratio of CDN $19,700 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conclusion: A treatment that reduces symptoms and improves quality of life has the potential to reduce costs in other areas. Economic factors should not influence the clinical decision as to whether to use M + P in a symptomatic patient.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=7144261043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=7144261043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9626231

AN - SCOPUS:7144261043

VL - 16

SP - 2272

EP - 2279

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 6

ER -