Wang L, Lu B, He M, Wang Y, Wang Z, Du L. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality: global status and temporal trends in 89 countries from 2000 to 2019. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 811044.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Giona S. The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Brisbane: Exon Publications; 2021. p. 1–15.

Google Scholar 

Dess RT, Morgan TM, Nguyen PL, Mehra R, Sandler HM, Feng FY, et al. Adjuvant versus early salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy for men with localized prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18:1–12.

Google Scholar 

Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Davis M, Turner EL, et al. Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(17):1547–58.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kaye DR, Khilfeh I, Muser E, Morrison L, Kinkead F, Lefebvre P, et al. Real-world economic burden associated with disease progression from metastatic castration-sensitive to castration-resistant prostate cancer on treatment in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2024;30(7):684–97.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ryan CJ, Ke X, Lafeuille M-H, Romdhani H, Kinkead F, Lefebvre P, et al. Management of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the real-world setting in the United States. J Urol. 2021;206(6):1420–9.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(9):1119–34.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Meagher MF, Salmasi A, Stewart TF. Treatment landscape for metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer: a review. Res Rep Urol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S398129.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Nguyen T, Ameyaw D, Obeng G, Amuah R, Józwiak-Hagymásy J, Dóczi T, et al. SA50 systematic literature review on economic evaluations and health economic models in the field of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Value Health. 2024;27(12):S623.

Google Scholar 

Yanev I, Gatete J Jr, Aprikian AG, Guertin JR, Dragomir A. The health economics of metastatic hormone-sensitive and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer—a systematic literature review with application to the Canadian context. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(5):3393–424.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Parmar A, Timilshina N, Emmenegger U, Smoragiewicz M, Sander B, Alibhai S, et al. A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castrationsensitive prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2022;16(3):E126.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Saad F, Chilelli A, Hui B, Muratov S, Ganguli A, North S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide versus apalutamide versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in Canada. J Med Econ. 2022;25(1):583–90.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sathianathen NJ, Lawrentschuk N, Konety BR, Azad A, Corcoran N, Bolton DM, et al. Cost effectiveness of systemic treatment intensification for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: is triplet therapy cost effective? Eur Urol Oncol. 2024. 7(4):870–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.013. Epub 2023 Dec 6. PMID: 38057191

Woods BS, Sideris E, Sydes MR, Gannon MR, Parmar MKB, Alzouebi M, et al. Addition of docetaxel to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): modelling to estimate long-term survival, quality-adjusted survival, and cost-effectiveness. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(6):449–58.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Beca J, Majeed H, Chan KKW, Hotte SJ, Loblaw A, Hoch JS. Cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in high-volume hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 2019;13(12):396–403.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Pelloux-Prayer R, Schiele P, Oudard S, Gravis G, Kleinclauss F, Crehange G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of innovative therapy for patients with newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021;19(5):e326–33.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yoo M, Nelson R, Haaland B, Dougherty M, Cutshall Z, Kohli R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 treatments in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a public-payer perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023;115(11):1374–82.

PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Pan F, Reifsnider O, Zheng Y, Proskorovsky I, Li T, He J, et al. Modeling clinical outcomes in prostate cancer: application and validation of the discrete event simulation approach. Value Health. 2018;21(4):416–22.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Woods BS, Sideris E, Palmer S, Latimer N, Soares M. Partitioned survival and state transition models for healthcare decision making in oncology: where are we now? Value Health. 2020;23(12):1613–21.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cheung LC, Albert PS, Das S, Cook RJ. Multistate models for the natural history of cancer progression. Br J Cancer. 2022;127(7):1279–88.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Beyersmann J, Allignol A, Schumacher M. Competing risks and multistate models with R. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.

Google Scholar 

Williams C, Lewsey JD, Briggs AH, Mackay DF. Cost-effectiveness analysis in R using a multi-state modeling survival analysis framework: a tutorial. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37(4):340–52.

Google Scholar 

Cranmer H, Shields GE, Bullement A. A comparison of partitioned survival analysis and state transition multi-state modelling approaches using a case study in oncology. J Med Econ. 2020;23(10):1176–85.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Williams C, Lewsey JD, Mackay DF, Briggs AH. Estimation of survival probabilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses: a comparison of a multi-state modeling survival analysis approach with partitioned survival and Markov decision-analytic modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37(4):427–39.

Google Scholar 

Jackson CH, Bojke L, Thompson SG, Claxton K, Sharples LD. A framework for addressing structural uncertainty in decision models. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(4):662–74.

Google Scholar 

Thom H, Jackson C, Welton N, Sharples L. Using parameter constraints to choose state structures in cost-effectiveness modelling. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(9):951–62.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lopes S, Johansen P, Lamotte M, McEwan P, Olivieri AV, Foos V. External validation of the core obesity model to assess the cost-effectiveness of weight management interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(10):1123–33.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rodgers M, Epstein D, Bojke L, Yang H, Craig D, Fonseca T, et al. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme: Executive Summaries. 2011.

NICE. Ataluren for treating Duchenne muscular dystrophy with a nonsense mutation in the dystrophin gene; HST22: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2023 [cited 14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hst22. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

NICE. Vamorolone for treating Duchenne muscular dystrophy in people 4 years and over; TA103: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2025 14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta1031. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

Woodcock F, Mumby-Croft J, Ghosh S, Chandler F, Godfrey J, Crossley E. PRO16 project Hercules: a case study in developing a multi-company, flexible cost-effectiveness model in a rare disease. Value Health. 2019;22: S843.

Google Scholar 

Woodcock F, Mumby-Croft J, Ghosh S, Chandler F, Godfrey J, Crossley E. PRO20 project hercules: a paradigm shift in the development of cost-effectiveness models in rare diseases. Value Health. 2019;22:S844.

Google Scholar 

NICE. Dimethyl fumarate for treating relapsing‑remitting multiple sclerosis; TA320: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2014 [14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta320. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

NICE. Teriflunomide for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis; TA303: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2014 [14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta303. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

NICE. Ozanimod for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis; TA706: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2021 [14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta706. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

Laxy M, Schöning VM, Kurz C, Holle R, Peters A, Meisinger C, et al. Performance of the UKPDS outcomes model 2 for predicting death and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from a German population-based cohort. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(12):1485–94.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Keng MJ, Leal J, Mafham M, Bowman L, Armitage J, Mihaylova B. Performance of the UK prospective diabetes study outcomes model 2 in a contemporary UK type 2 diabetes trial cohort. Value Health. 2022;25(3):435–42.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray A, Holman R, Clarke P. UKPDS outcomes model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom prospective diabetes study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56:1925–33.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

NICE. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for the treatment of diabetes mellitus; TA151: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2008 [14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta151. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

NICE. Type 2 diabetes prevention: population and community-level interventions; PH35: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2011 [14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph35. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

NICE. Dapagliflozin in triple therapy for treating type 2 diabetes; TA418: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2016 [14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta418. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

NICE. Dapagliflozin in combination therapy for treating type 2 diabetes; TA288: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013 [14 March 2025]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta288. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.

Ghabri S, Stevenson M, Möller J, Caro JJ. Trusting the results of model-based economic analyses: is there a pragmatic validation solution? Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(1):1–6.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Büyükkaramikli NC, Rutten-van Mölken MP, Severens JL, Al M. TECH-VER: a verification checklist to reduce errors in models and improve their credibility. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:1391–408.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Drummond M, Jefferson T. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ Br Med J. 1996;313(7052):275.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Initiative IM. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment enhancement through the power of big data in Europe PIONEER. D6.2 Prostate cancer reference models. 2023. https://prostate-pioneer.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/PIONEER_Deliverable-6.2_pdf

Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):667–77.

Google Scholar 

Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):678–89.

Google Scholar 

Pitman R, Fisman D, Zaric GS, Postma M, Kretzschmar M, Edmunds J, et al. Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-5. Value Health. 2012;15(6):828–34.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Möller J. Modeling using discrete