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

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 palliation 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: these 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 measured every 3 weeks on trial to an estimate of utility, and extending the last known 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 proportion of cost (M + P 53% v P 66%; CDN $14,500 v $19,100) was for inpatient care. Initial M + P was consistently less expensive in whichever time period was used to compare costs. Cost-utility analysis showed M + P to be the preferred 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.

[1]  M. Stockler,et al.  Resource implications of palliative chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  A. Denes Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  S. Stearns,et al.  Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  A R Willan,et al.  Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an application of Fieller's theorem. , 1996, Health economics.

[5]  D. Osoba,et al.  Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  D. Osoba,et al.  Health-related quality-of-life studies of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. , 1996, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[7]  C. Williams,et al.  European School of Oncology Advisory report to the Commission of the European Communities for the "Europe Against Cancer Programme" cost-effectiveness in cancer care. , 1995, European journal of cancer.

[8]  D. Fairclough,et al.  Comparison of Time-tradeoff Utilities and Rating Scale Values of Cancer Patients and Their Relatives , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  A. McEwan,et al.  A retrospective analysis of the cost effectiveness of treatment with Metastron in patients with prostate cancer metastatic to bone. , 1994, European urology.

[10]  A. Gafni,et al.  Discounting in the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Interventions , 1993, Medical care.

[11]  D. Osoba,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  V. Goel,et al.  Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis: misguided guidelines? , 1993, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[13]  A S Detsky,et al.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. , 1992, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[14]  P. Warde,et al.  Counting the costs of chemotherapy in a National Cancer Institute of Canada randomized trial in nonsmall-cell lung cancer. , 1990, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  I. Tannock,et al.  Treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer with low-dose prednisone: evaluation of pain and quality of life as pragmatic indices of response. , 1989, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[17]  G W Torrance,et al.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[18]  G. Torrance Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. , 1986, Journal of health economics.

[19]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Preferences for Health Outcomes , 1984, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[20]  D L Sackett,et al.  Cost effectiveness of clinical diagnosis, venography, and noninvasive testing in patients with symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.