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, T. 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
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.6.2272
DO - 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.6.2272
M3 - Article
C2 - 9626231
AN - SCOPUS:7144261043
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 16
SP - 2272
EP - 2279
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 6
ER -