Cost-Effectiveness of PARP Inhibitors for Patients with BRCA1/2-Positive Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer—The Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Through phase III clinical trials, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated outcome improvements in mCRPC patients with alterations in BRCA1/2 genes who have progressed on a second-generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). While improving outcomes, PARP inhibitors contribute to the ever-growing economic burden of PCa. The objective of this project is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib, or talazoparib) versus the SOC (docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI)) for previously progressed mCRPC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations from the Canadian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: Partitioned survival models were created to represent mCRPC disease after progression until death. Survival inputs for BRCA1/2-mutated patients were extracted from the PROfound, TRITON3, and TALAPRO-1 clinical trials, while Canadian-specific costs are presented in 2023 dollars. Upon progression, patients were treated with chemotherapy. The considered time horizon was 5 years and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year. RESULTS: PARP inhibitors provide an additional survival of 0.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) when compared to the current standard of care, with additional costs of CAD 101,679 resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 565,383/QALY. The results were most sensitive to PARP inhibitors' acquisition costs and health-state utilities. PARP inhibitors required price reductions of up to 83% to meet the CAD 50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP). CONCLUSIONS: While providing survival benefits to previously progressed mCRPC patients presenting deleterious BRCA1/2 gene mutations, PARP inhibitors are not cost-effective and require major price reductions to reach local WTP thresholds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".