Real-world treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the USA, Europe and Asia.

To characterize real-world patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and treating physicians and evaluate treatment trends and baseline concordance versus guidelines internationally. Retrospective, cross-sectional data from the Ipsos Global Oncology Monitor database 2018-2020 were used for descriptive analysis of mHSPC patients, treating physicians and treatment utilization. Among the 6198 mHSPC patients from five countries, the most common treatment was either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy or first-generation androgen receptor inhibitor + ADT.

The Hospitalization-Related Costs of Adverse Events for Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Indirect Comparison.

Introduction: Three novel androgen receptor inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. All three therapies have demonstrated prolonged metastasis-free survival in their respective phase III trials, with differing safety profiles. The objective of this study was to compare the mean per-patient costs of all-cause adverse events (AEs) requiring hospitalization between darolutamide versus apalutamide and enzalutamide for nmCRPC in the USA.

Indirect Comparison of Darolutamide versus Apalutamide and Enzalutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: No published head-to-head randomized trials have compared the safety and efficacy of darolutamide vs apalutamide or enzalutamide in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. This study compares prespecified adverse events and metastasis-free survival associated with darolutamide vs apalutamide, and darolutamide vs enzalutamide, via matching-adjusted indirect comparisons.

Materials And Methods: Individual patient data from the phase III ARAMIS trial (N=553; N=943) were selected and reweighted to match the inclusion criteria and baseline characteristics published for the phase III SPARTAN (N=401; N=806) and PROSPER (N=468; N=933) trials.

Patient and caregiver benefit-risk preferences for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment.

Background: Recently approved second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs) for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have similar efficacy but differ in safety profiles. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine how nmCRPC patients and caregivers perceive the benefits versus risks of these new treatments.

Methods: An online DCE survey with 14 treatment choice questions was administered to nmCRPC patients and caregivers.

Physician preferences for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment.

Background: Recent approvals of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs) have changed the treatment landscape for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). These SGARIs have similar efficacy but differ in safety profiles. We used a discrete choice experiment to explore how United States physicians make treatment decisions between adverse events (AEs) and survival gains in nmCRPC, a largely asymptomatic disease.

Direct medical costs of treatment in newly-diagnosed high-grade glioma among commercially insured US patients.

Aim: This analysis assessed the direct medical costs of newly-diagnosed, temozolomide (TMZ)-treated glioblastoma (GBM) from the perspective of a US commercial setting.

Materials And Methods: The analysis included subjects identified from the IMS PharMetrics LifeLink Plus™ claims database from January 1, 2008 to August 31, 2014 who were ≥18 years of age, had ≥1 malignant brain cancer diagnosis, had brain surgery ≤90 days prior to TMZ initiation, had TMZ treatment, and were continuously enrolled for ≥12 months pre-diagnosis and ≥1 month post-diagnosis. Per-patient per-month (PPPM) and cumulative costs from 3 months pre-diagnosis to various post-diagnosis follow-up time points were calculated.

The Importance of Economic Perspective and Quantitative Approaches in Oncology Value Frameworks of Drug Selection and Shared Decision Making.

Unlabelled: The debate around value in oncology drug selection has been prominent in recent years, and several professional bodies have furthered this debate by advocating for so-called value frameworks. Herein, we provide a viewpoint on these value frameworks, emphasizing the need to consider 4 key aspects: (1) the economic underpinnings of value; (2) the importance of the perspective adopted in the valuation; (3) the importance of the difference between absolute and relative measures of risk and measuring patient preferences; and (4) the recognition of multiple quality-of-life (QoL) domains, and the aggregation and valuation of those domains, through utilities within a multicriteria decision analysis, may allow prioritization of QoL above the tallying of safety events, particularly in a value framework focusing on the individual patient. While several frameworks exist, they incorporate different attributes and-importantly-assess value from alternative perspectives, including those of patients, regulators, payers, and society.