Cancers · 2025
Direct and Indirect Costs of Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Assessment of Economic and Social Impact.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gąska Izabela, Czerw Aleksandra, Pajewska Monika, Partyka Olga, Deptała Andrzej, Badowska-Kozakiewicz Anna, Czerw Natalia, Mękal Dominika, Sygit Katarzyna, Wojtyła-Blicharska Katarzyna, Drobnik Jarosław, Pobrotyn Piotr, Waśko-Czopnik Dorota, Wiatkowski Adam, Marczak Michał, Czapla Tomasz, Bandurska Ewa, Ciećko Weronika, Grochans Elżbieta, Cybulska Anna M, Schneider-Matyka Daria, Rachubińska Kamila, Kozlowski Remigiusz
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second most common malignant cancer among men, and according to the predictions, the estimated number of new cases will substantially grow in the coming years. Therefore, the costs of the disease will increase as well.
METHODS: We conducted a literature review of the state of knowledge about the costs of treatment and the economic burden of prostate cancer. The vast majority of studies were focused on direct costs only, which clearly shows the literature gap.
RESULTS: We focused on the estimates of direct costs, i.e., treatment of prostate cancer, adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment, and supportive and palliative care, and indirect costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that docetaxel combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was the most cost-effective strategy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): USD 13,647). In contrast, novel therapies such as PARP inhibitors and whole-genome-sequencing-guided treatments were not cost-effective unless drug prices were reduced by 47-70%. In the United States, 5-year cumulative treatment costs ranged from USD 48,000 for conservative management to over USD 91,000 for radiotherapy, while out-of-pocket expenses averaged AUD 1172 in Australia. Indirect costs were also considerable, with Slovakia reporting an increase in sick leave costs from EUR 1.2 million in 2014 to EUR 2.1 million in 2022.
CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were the most frequent categories for various treatment cost evaluations. A few specific combinations of drugs were cost-effective only under the condition of dropping the unit prices of a medication. Further summarizing, reviewing, and developing a methodology for standardized comparisons are needed.
METHODS: We conducted a literature review of the state of knowledge about the costs of treatment and the economic burden of prostate cancer. The vast majority of studies were focused on direct costs only, which clearly shows the literature gap.
RESULTS: We focused on the estimates of direct costs, i.e., treatment of prostate cancer, adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment, and supportive and palliative care, and indirect costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that docetaxel combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was the most cost-effective strategy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): USD 13,647). In contrast, novel therapies such as PARP inhibitors and whole-genome-sequencing-guided treatments were not cost-effective unless drug prices were reduced by 47-70%. In the United States, 5-year cumulative treatment costs ranged from USD 48,000 for conservative management to over USD 91,000 for radiotherapy, while out-of-pocket expenses averaged AUD 1172 in Australia. Indirect costs were also considerable, with Slovakia reporting an increase in sick leave costs from EUR 1.2 million in 2014 to EUR 2.1 million in 2022.
CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were the most frequent categories for various treatment cost evaluations. A few specific combinations of drugs were cost-effective only under the condition of dropping the unit prices of a medication. Further summarizing, reviewing, and developing a methodology for standardized comparisons are needed.