Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography with Piflufolastat F 18 for the Initial Diagnosis of Patients with Prostate Cancer in the United States

被引:2
|
作者
Yee, Christopher W. [1 ]
Harvey, Michael J. [1 ]
Xin, Yiqiao [1 ]
Kirson, Noam Y. [1 ]
机构
[1] Anal Grp Inc, Boston, MA 02199 USA
关键词
BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; MANAGEMENT; MEN;
D O I
10.1007/s40273-023-01322-2
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Background and objectives Piflufolastat F 18 is a novel prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracer that is superior to standard of care (SOC) imaging for the initial staging of prostate cancer and the detection of biochemical recurrence. As piflufolastat F 18 has been approved in the United States (US) for this indication, this modeling study assessed the cost effectiveness of piflufolastat F 18 versus fluciclovine F-18, gallium68-PSMA-11 (PSMA 11), and SOC imaging (a mix of bone scans, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging) for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer from a US healthcare system perspective.Perspective A US third-party payer perspective was used, which for this population reflects a mix of commercial and Medicare, considering only direct healthcare costs.Setting This study utilized a tertiary healthcare setting.Methods A decision tree was used to map the diagnostic/treatment pathway, consisting of the proportion of patients with local, regional, distant, or no disease; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <= 1.0 or > 1.0; and accuracy of imaging modalities. A Markov model predicted the long-term outcomes of disease progression according to treatment decisions. Inputs to the model were informed by data from the OSPREY and CONDOR clinical trials, public data, and the literature. Treatment mix included active surveillance, radiation therapy, prostatectomy, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and radiation therapy + ADT, informed by expert opinion. Outcomes included life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were reported in 2021 US dollars, using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 was considered cost effective, consistent with the upper range used as the standard for price benchmarks by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. The robustness of the base-case results was assessed in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results Over a lifetime horizon, piflufolastat F 18 had the greatest effectiveness in terms of LYs (6.80) and QALYs (5.33); for the comparators, LYs ranged from 6.58 (SOC) to 6.76 (PSMA 11) and QALYs ranged from 5.12 (SOC) and 5.30 (PSMA 11). Piflufolastat F 18 was more cost effective compared with fluciclovine F 18, PSMA 11, and SOC, with ICERs of $21,122, $55,836, and $124,330 per QALY gained, respectively. Piflufolastat F 18 was associated with the greatest net monetary benefit ($627,918) compared with the other options at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The results of the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results.Conclusions This study suggests that piflufolastat F 18 is a cost-effective diagnostic option for men with prostate cancer in the US, with higher associated LY, QALY, and greater net monetary benefit than fluciclovine F 18, PSMA 11, and SOC imaging.
引用
收藏
页码:231 / 247
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Clinical Usefulness of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-ligand Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence after Primary Radiation Therapy in Patients with Prostate-specific Antigen Below the Phoenix Threshold: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Subiela, J. D.
    Selles, E. Gomis
    Maldonado, A.
    Campos, F. Lopez
    Ovide, J. Aumatell
    Illarramendi, O. Ajuria
    Gonzalez-Padilla, D. A.
    Gajate, P.
    Polledo, L. E. Ortega
    Gregorio, S. Alonso y
    Guerrero-Ramos, F.
    Dos Santos, V. Gomez
    Rodriguez-Patron, R.
    Calais, J.
    Kishan, A. U.
    Revilla, F. J. Burgos
    Counago, F.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 35 (12) : E676 - E688
  • [32] Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomographye-Computed Tomography for Prostate Cancer: Distribution of Disease and Implications for Radiation Therapy Planning
    Gupta, Sandeep K.
    Watson, Tahne
    Denham, Jim
    Shakespeare, Thomas P.
    Rutherford, Natalie
    McLeod, Nicholas
    Picton, Kevin
    Ainsworth, Paul
    Bonaventura, Tony
    Martin, Jarad M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 99 (03): : 701 - 709
  • [33] Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography funding grants free access to superior staging for Australian men with prostate cancer Comment
    O'Brien, Jonathan S.
    McVey, Aoife
    Kelly, Brian D.
    Jenjitranant, Pocharapong
    Buteau, James
    Hofman, Michael S.
    Kasivisvanithan, Veeru
    Eapen, Renu
    Moon, Daniel
    Murphy, Declan G.
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 130 : 8 - 10
  • [34] Modelling Study with an Interactive Model Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of 68Ga Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Nano Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Pelvic Lymph Node Metastases in Patients with Primary Prostate Cancer
    Scholte, Mirre
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    Sedelaar, J. P. Michiel
    Gotthardt, Martin
    Grutters, Janneke P. C.
    Rovers, Maroeska M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2020, 6 (05): : 967 - 974
  • [35] Stellenwert der PSMA-PET/CT („prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography“) im Rahmen des StagingsRole of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) in staging
    Claudia Kesch
    Tobias Franiel
    Christoph Berliner
    Wolfgang P. Fendler
    Ken Herrmann
    Boris Hadaschik
    Die Urologie, 2025, 64 (3) : 220 - 228
  • [36] Diagnostic performance of Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography in intermediate and high risk prostate cancer
    El Hajj, Albert
    Yacoub, Basel
    Mansour, Mazen
    Khauli, Raja
    Bulbul, Mohamad
    Nassif, Samer
    Haidar, Mohamad B.
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (44) : e17491
  • [37] Evaluation of Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (GA-68 PSMA PET/CT) in recurrent prostate cancer: a retrospective review of initial clinical experience at Tygerberg Hospital
    Sangiwa, Bright Awadh
    Burger, Celeste
    Ellmann, Annare
    PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 48
  • [38] Role of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) in staging
    Kesch, Claudia
    Franiel, Tobias
    Berliner, Christoph
    Fendler, Wolfgang P.
    Herrmann, Ken
    Hadaschik, Boris
    UROLOGIE, 2025, : 220 - 228
  • [39] Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Prostate Cancer in Older Men in the United States of America
    Black, Amanda
    Berg, Christine D.
    GERONTOLOGY, 2012, 58 (04) : 331 - 336
  • [40] Prostate-specific membran antigen targeting positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) in prostate cancer in France in 2023: Current use and perspectives
    Chanchou, M.
    Robin, P.
    MEDECINE NUCLEAIRE-IMAGERIE FONCTIONNELLE ET METABOLIQUE, 2023, 47 (05): : 258 - 265