Cost-Effectiveness of Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Neil R. Parikh, Eric M. Chang, Nicholas G. Nickols, Matthew B. Rettig, Ann C. Raldow, Michael L. Steinberg, Bridget F. Koontz, Neha Vapiwala, Curtiland Deville, Felix Y. Feng, Daniel E. Spratt, Robert E. Reiter, Ryan Phillips, Piet Ost, Phuoc T. Tran, Amar U. Kishan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Purpose: Oligorecurrent prostate cancer has historically been treated with indefinite androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), although many patients and providers opt to defer this treatment at the time of recurrence given quality-of-life and/or comorbidity considerations. Recently, metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has emerged as a potential intermediary between surveillance and immediate continuous ADT. Simultaneously, advanced systemic therapy in addition to ADT has also been shown to improve survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treating oligorecurrent patients with upfront MDT before standard-of-care systemic therapy. Methods and Materials: A Markov-based cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed comparing 3 strategies: (1) upfront MDT → salvage abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; (2) upfront AAP + ADT → salvage docetaxel + ADT; and (3) upfront docetaxel + ADT → salvage AAP + ADT. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature. Using a 10-year time horizon and willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit values were subsequently calculated for each treatment strategy. Results: At 10 years, the base case revealed a total cost of $141,148, $166,807, and $136,154 with QALYs of 4.63, 4.89, and 4.00, respectively, reflecting a net monetary benefit of $322,240, $322,018, and $263,407 for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000,000 simulations), upfront MDT was the cost-effective strategy in 53.6% of simulations. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed 95% confidence intervals for cost ($75,914-$179,862, $124,431-$223,892, and $103,298-$180,617) and utility in QALYs (3.85-6.12, 3.91-5.86, and 3.02-5.22) for upfront MDT, upfront AAP + ADT, and upfront docetaxel + ADT, respectively. Conclusions: At 10 years, upfront MDT followed by salvage AAP + ADT, is comparably cost-effective compared with upfront standard-of-care systemic therapy and may be considered a viable treatment strategy, especially in patients wishing to defer systemic therapy for quality-of-life or comorbidity concerns. Additional studies are needed to determine whether MDT causes a sustained meaningful delay in disease natural history and whether any benefit exists in combining MDT with upfront advanced systemic therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)917-926
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Issue number4
StatePublished - Nov 15 2020

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiation
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cancer Research


Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-Effectiveness of Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this