Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The escalating incidence of prostate cancer poses a significant global public health challenge. Optimal utilization of resources is crucial for the effective deployment of funds among the diverse and emerging treatment options for managing prostate cancer. This systematic review aims to offer insights and serve as a reference for pharmacoeconomic studies related to the use of degarelix and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in databases including Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Tufts CEA Registry to identify cost-effectiveness studies on the use of degarelix and LHRH agonists in the treatment of prostate cancer, spanning from the inception of these databases up to December 30, 2025. Two independent reviewers sequentially examined titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to select studies for data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Relevant data were then summarized and comparatively analyzed, focusing on aspects such as the model framework, model parameters, and uncertainty analysis. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were ultimately incorporated, with an overall high quality but significant methodological variations among them. Five studies compared degarelix with leuprorelin, goserelin, or triptorelin; four compared triptorelin to goserelin or leuprorelin; one study evaluated leuprorelin acetate in a 6-month depot formulation vs. a 3-month depot; two compared leuprorelin to goserelin and triptorelin; and one study assessed radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy plus goserelin. Eight studies employed the Markov model, with time horizons spanning from 1 year to 30 years. The majority of the studies (n = 7) conducted cost-effectiveness analyses, and most were based in developed countries (n = 7). Degarelix was deemed cost-effective in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Additionally, 6-month depot LHRH agonists were found to be more cost-effective than their monthly or 3-monthly counterparts. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective, the evidence suggests that degarelix may be a cost-effective option for patients with prostate cancer. All assessments of LHRH agonists are of high quality. Among the three LHRH agonists evaluated, the 6-month depot formulation of triptorelin may be a cost-effective option in certain settings. In clinical practice, the evaluation of a drug should comprehensively consider its efficacy, adverse effects, cost-effectiveness, and overall patient survival. The evidence is predominantly derived from high-income countries, and thus the conclusions may have limited generalizability to low- and middle-income country settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, PROSPERO CRD420250653923.