Search

Prostate cancer is a relatively slow-growing disease compared to other cancers, and the patients tend to be older. Taking into consideration therefore life expectancy of the patients and risks of recurrence and progression, conservative treatments (mainly hormonal therapy) are often applied for early cases, as well as radical treatments (total prostatectomy and radiotherapy). Particularly in Japan, many patients start treatment with hormonal therapy alone, in both early and advanced cases. Hence, Maximal Androgen Blockade (MAB) therapy, in which surgical or medical castration (such as LH-RH agonist treatment) and anti-androgen treatment are combined, is widely exercised with the hope to enhance treatment effects. The usefulness of MAB therapy has been assessed in a number of randomized comparative studies, covering mainly metastatic cases. The efficacy of the therapy with the use of flutamide as non-steroidal anti-androgen has been confirmed in some of the studies, although the magnitude of the efficacy cannot be said major. In Phase III clinical studies of MAB therapy with bicalutamide being conducted in Japan for patients in Stages C and D, however, the patient group treated with MAB therapy demonstrated more favorable results compared to the group treated with LH-RH agonist alone, particularly in terms of time to progression (TTP) of the patients in Stage C. These are relatively new findings on the usefulness and adaptability of MAB therapy. In this Panel Discussion, views and experiences are exchanged on a wide variety of topics covering the real usefulness of MAB therapy, its adaptability, possible outcomes of hormonal therapy in early cases, and the future of MAB therapy, taking into account the prevailing opinions and current practices on prostate cancer in both the United States and Japan.

We assessed the 1-year charges in the group of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and the changes in hospital costs and resource use following implementation of a clinical care path. A total of 69 consecutive men treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. Hospital and outpatient records were analyzed for each patient in regard to preoperative, operative and postoperative charges of a 12-month period. Parameters included number of encounters, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, hospitalization and operative charges, and follow-up visits, diagnostic tests and interventions for 1 year. The mean first-year cost of treatment with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was 144 x 10(4) yen. The increases in the first-year cost with higher prostate specific antigen (PSA) level for the diagnosis level appeared to primarily be associated with increased inpatient resource use and greater use of hormonal therapy. Length of the stay in a hospital significantly influenced the first-year cost. After implementation of the radical prostatectomy care path hospital costs decreased by 30% (66 x 10(4) yen vs 46 x 10(4) yen), total costs decreased 40% (190 x 10(4) yen vs 113 x 10(4) yen) and length of hospital stay decreased by 56% (37.0 vs 16.6). The first-year costs with radical prostatectomy are influenced greatly by the hormonal therapy and the number of hospital days. By standardizing preoperative and postoperative management for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, significant savings can be achieved toward shorter hospital stays and lower hospital costs.

Background: As Bayoumi, et al pointed out in their article (J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000, vol 92, p 1731), it is evident that treatment of prostate cancer with Luteinizing Hormone Releasing Hormone (LHRH) analogue costs more than treatment by bilateral orchiectomy. However, patients with metastatic prostate cancer are usually treated with LHRH analogue. Does this mean that urologist choose higher cost and less Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) treatment? Therefore, we urologists should re-analyze their conclusion whether the treatment with LHRH analogue is really strictly dominated (high cost and low effect)., Material and Method: We performed a cost-utility analysis using the Markov model based on a formal meta-analysis and literature review, using the same assumptions as Bayoumi, et al, from the perspective of insurer. The base case was assumed to be a 65-year-old man with symptomatic metastatic prostate cancer. The model used time horizon of 10 years. Five androgen ablation therapies were evaluated as first-line therapy: diethylstilbestrol diphosphate (DES), orchiectomy, orchiectomy + nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA), LHRH analogue and LHRH analogue + NSAA. Outcome measures were QALY, lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results: While DES was the least expensive therapy with the lowest QALY, LHRH analogue monotherapy was the second most expensive therapy with the longest QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios relative to DES of LHRH (yen 4,288,295/QALY) was cheaper than that of orchiectomy when quality of life (QOL) weight of orchiectomy was assumed to be 0.94 relative to that of LHRH analogue. Contrarily, LHRH analogue + NSAA is excluded with strict dominance and Orchiectomy + NSAA is excluded with extended dominance., Conclusion: Although LHRH analogue costs higher than orchiectomy, LHRH analogue can offer longer QALY than orchiectomy. Cost/QALY of LHRH analogue relative to DES is yen 4,288,295/QALY, which we considered to represent a good value. Choice of therapy depends on the patient's preference.