title: Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.
abstract: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cabazitaxel (Jevtana®, sanofi-aventis, UK) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence was derived from a multinational randomized open-label phase III trial of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone in men with mHRPC that had progressed during or following treatment with docetaxel. The comparator was mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone. Use of cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, median progression-free survival and time to tumour progression. However, it was also associated with an increased incidence of adverse events such as neutropenia. Utility data were based on interim results from the early access programme for cabazitaxel. Data were only available for a small number of patients with stable disease, resulting in great uncertainty as to the effect of cabazitaxel on quality of life. For their economic evaluation, the manufacturer estimated that the use of cabazitaxel was associated with an incremental cost of £74,908 per QALY gained. However, the ERG disagreed with the manufacturer over two key methodological points. The first concerned modelling and extrapolating survival; the second point was concerned with the choice of patient population. The ERG altered the manufacturer's evaluation to take into account these two points of disagreement. The resulting cost per QALY gained was £82,950. The NICE Appraisal Committee believed the analysis presented by the ERG to be more plausible, and likely to be an underestimate of the cost per QALY. They concluded that whilst the clinical effectiveness of cabazitaxel had been proven, it was not likely to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources and so its use could not be recommended.
authors.affiliation: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. b.kearns@sheffield.ac.uk
authors.forename: Ben
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Kearns
authors.forename: Myfanwy
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lloyd Jones
authors.forename: Matt
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Stevenson
authors.forename: Chris
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Littlewood
mesh_terms: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D018572:Disease-Free Survival; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009362:Neoplasm Metastasis; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics / Q000473:pathology; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015996:Survival Rate; D043823:Taxoids / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006113:United Kingdom
chemical_list: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents; D043823:Taxoids; C552428:cabazitaxel