Introduction

Three pivotal trials have considered the addition of docetaxel (D) chemotherapy to conventional androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of metastatic hormone- sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). While an initial small trial was inconclusive, two larger trials demonstrated significant clinical benefit, including pronounced survival benefits (added 17 months) among patients with high-volume metastatic disease. Given the evolving clinical evidence, the cost-effectiveness of this approach warrants exploration.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness of six cycles of ADT+D compared to ADT alone to treat patients with high-volume metastatic HSPC was assessed from a Canadian public payer perspective. We included three health states: HSPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and death. Survival data were obtained from the CHAARTED trial, which reported outcomes specifically for high-volume disease. We used Ontario costs data and utilities from the literature.

Results

In the base case analysis, ADT+D cost an additional $25 757 and produced an extra 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24 226/QALY gained. Results from one-way sensitivity analysis across wide ranges of estimates and a range of scenarios, including an alternate model structure, produced ICERs below $35 000/QALY gained in all cases.

Conclusions

The use of D with ADT in high-volume metastatic HSPC appears to be an economically attractive treatment approach. The findings were consistent with other studies and robust in sensitivity analysis across a variety of scenarios.

Background

Resource and cost issues are a growing concern in health care. Thus, it is important to have an accurate estimate of the economic burden of care. Previous work has estimated the economic burden of cancer care for Canada; however, there is some concern this estimate is too low. The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive revised estimate of this burden.

Methods

We used a case-control prevalence-based approach to estimate direct annual cancer costs from 2005 to 2012. We used patient-level administrative health care data from Ontario to correctly attribute health care costs to cancer. We employed the net cost method (cost difference between patients with cancer and control subjects without cancer) to account for costs directly and indirectly related to cancer and its sequelae. Using average patient-level cost estimates from Ontario, we applied proportions from national health expenditures data to obtain the economic burden of cancer care for Canada. All costs were adjusted to 2015 Canadian dollars.

Results

Costs of cancer care rose steadily over our analysis period, from $2.9 billion in 2005 to $7.5 billion in 2012, mostly owing to the increase in costs of hospital-based care. Most expenditures for health care services increased over time, with chemotherapy and radiation therapy expenditures accounting for the largest increases over the study period. Our cost estimates were larger than those in the Economic Burden of Illness in Canada 2005-2008 report for every year except 2005 and 2006.

Interpretation

The economic burden of cancer care in Canada is substantial. Further research is needed to understand how the economic burden of cancer compares to that of other diseases.

Recently, there has been increased consideration of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. Due to challenges in identifying high-quality and relevant RWD sources, researchers and regulatory/HTA bodies may turn to RWD generated in locales outside of the locale of interest (referred to as "transferring RWD"). We therefore performed a review of stakeholder guidance as well as selected case studies to identify themes for researchers to consider when transferring RWD from one jurisdiction to another. Our review highlighted that there is limited consensus on defining decision-grade, transferred RWD; certain stakeholders have issued relevant guidance, but the recommendations are high-level and additional effort is needed to generate comprehensive guidance. Additionally, the case studies revealed that RWD transferability has not been a consistent concern for regulatory/HTA bodies and that more focus has been put on the evaluation of internal validity. To help develop transferability best practices (alongside internal validity best practices), we suggest that researchers address the following considerations in their justification for transferring RWD: treatment pathways, nature of the healthcare system, incidence/prevalence of indication, and patient demographics. We also recommend that RWD transferability should garner more attention as the use of imported RWD could open doors to high-quality data sources and potentially reduce methodological issues that often arise in the use of local RWD; we thus hope this review provides a foundation for further dialogue around the suitability and utility of transferred RWD in the regulatory/HTA decision-making space.

Background

Costing studies are useful to measure the economic burden of cancer. Comparing costs between healthcare systems can inform evaluation, development or modification of cancer care policies.

Objectives

To estimate and compare cancer costs in British Columbia and Ontario from the payers' perspectives.

Methods

Using linked cancer registry and administrative data, and standardized costing methodology and analyses, we estimated costs for 21 cancer sites by phase of care to determine potential differences between provinces.

Results

Overall, costs were higher in Ontario. Costs were highest in the initial post-diagnosis and pre-death phases and lowest in the pre-diagnosis and continuing phases, and generally higher for brain cancer and multiple myeloma, and lower for melanoma. Hospitalization was the major cost category. Costs for physician services and diagnostic tests differed the most between provinces.

Conclusions

The standardization of data and costing methodology is challenging, but it enables interprovincial and international comparative costing analyses.