Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Journal of Oncology ...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Journal of Oncology Practice
Article . 2006 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Even More Cost Savings?

Authors: James L, Gulley; William D, Figg; William, Dahut;

Even More Cost Savings?

Abstract

We read with great interest the article by Wagmiller et al1 describing the potential cost savings for an individualized strategy for dosing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. The study is based on the finding shown by a number of studies, that testosterone suppression continues in many men beyond the scheduled readministration of a GnRH agonist. Thus, delaying readministration of GnRH agonist until testosterone suppression is abated might lead to significant cost savings. A similar proportion of cost savings was suggested previously in a 22-subject clinical trial.2 An accurate estimate of the duration of continued testosterone suppression in a general population is therefore key to this analysis. The authors base their 6-month duration of castrate levels of testosterone on a single study of only 32 patients.3 Other studies not referenced by the authors have been done, including one with monthly testosterone values.4 This is a prospective study in which 80 patients, all of whom were treated with 6 months of GnRH agonist therapy, had testosterone levels tested monthly. Reassuringly, this trial shows a similar duration of castrate levels of testosterone lasting 6 months following the last 3-month GnRH agonist. However, the estimate of cost savings may actually be greater than outlined in the article. The extrapolation of the length of testosterone suppression from patients with androgen-sensitive prostate cancer (not previously exposed to chemical castration) to patients with androgen-insensitive prostate cancer (AIPC; following months to years of androgen deprivation therapy) will likely underestimate the castrate interval in the latter group. The testosterone reserve will likely not be as great in patients treated with a longer duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and they may have a significantly longer duration of testosterone suppression.5,6 In addition, as patients are being treated with ADT earlier in the disease course, the prevalence of patients with AIPC is increasing, and patients are living longer with AIPC. We agree with the authors that their assumptions about survival are probably conservative. Besides the study they quote, another single-institution study of 80 patients reported a median overall survival from the time of onset of androgen independence, of 63.1 months in men without radiographic disease and 44.2 months in men with metastatic prostate cancer.7 Even the recent large phase III trials, which enrolled patients at various points after having developed AIPC, had median overall survivals from starting chemotherapy in the 18-month range.8,9 Furthermore, in this patient population composed mostly of elderly men, there are significant competing causes of mortality. Thus the prevalence of AIPC does not equal the annual death rate from prostate cancer (the conservative estimate used), but rather is certain to exceed it.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
bronze
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research