Counting the costs of chemotherapy in a National Cancer Institute of Canada randomized trial in nonsmall-cell lung cancer

The Use of Neuromodulation for Symptom Management

Pain and other symptoms of autonomic dysregulation such as hypertension, dyspnoea and bladder instability can lead to intractable suffering. Incorporation of neuromodulation into symptom management, including palliative care treatment protocols, is becoming a viable option scientifically, ethically, and economically in order to relieve suffering. It provides further opportunity for symptom control that cannot otherwise be provided by pharmacology and other conventional methods.

Cost-of-illness study for non-small-cell lung cancer using real-world data

Background

With recent advances in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) and current fiscal constraints within publicly funded health care systems, understanding the real-world economic effect of lung cancer management has become important. The objective of the present study was to determine the costs and resources used in the management of nsclc cohorts in Ontario.

Methods

Patients diagnosed between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015 were identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to provincial administrative databases, capturing resources such as hospitalizations, cancer clinic visits, physician services, and systemic therapies or radiotherapy. A cost-of-illness analysis using a bottom-up approach and the GETCOST macro available at ices determined the overall total and mean costs in 2017 Canadian dollars. Resource utilization results were analyzed according to the total number of encounters per resource, the number of patients using each resource, and the number of encounters per patient. A separate cost-and-resource analysis was conducted for radiotherapy.

Results

The 24,729 nsclc patients identified included 4542 with stage iii unresectable disease and 10,103 with stage iv nonsquamous disease. The overall total cost for all nsclc patients was $1.9 billion, with inpatient hospitalizations ($635.2 million), cancer clinic visits ($323.7 million), and physician services ($301.4 million) being the top cost contributors. The mean cost per patient was $76,816. The total cost of radiotherapy was $38.5 million.

Conclusions

Real-world costs for the management of nsclc during the 5-year period examined were substantial, despite the fact that median survival was poor and treatment information was limited.

Hospital charges for a community inpatient palliative care program

Defining financial parameters of palliative care (PC) is important for providing sustainable programming. In our study, we evaluated hospital length of stay (LOS) and charges for the first 164 inpatient PC consultations performed by the Advanced Illness Assistance (AIA) team at Blount Memorial Hospital (BMH). These AIA patients had a median LOS of 11 days (range, 3-114 days), mean total charges per patient of $65,795, and mean daily charges of $3,809. Higher mean daily charges (p = 2.74 E-08, chi-square) were associated with patients who received consultation because of nonphysical symptom reasons. Patients were followed in PC consultation (AIA follow-up days) for a median of five days (range, 1-48), and had mean daily charges of $3,117. These mean daily charges were $414 less than the charges for the five days prior to PC consultation (pre-AIA days) (p = 0.04, t-test). There was a significant decrease in laboratory and imaging charges during AIA follow-up (p = 0.04, t-test).

The study included a reference group of patients whose information was obtained retrospectively from the BMH Atlas ® (MediQual, Marlborough, MA) database. These reference group patients were hospitalized at BMH during the same time, but they were not seen by the AIA team. The reference group was matched by Diagnosis Related Group (DRG), Admission Severity Grade (ASG), and disposition to the AIA patients. The Atlas patients had a shorter median LOS of six days (range, 1-105 days), and significantly greater mean daily charges of $4,105 (p = 0.006, t-test) compared with AIA patients. Mean daily charges decreased for Atlas patients, as their day of discharge approached (p < 0.001).

Estimates of potential charge savings were calculated in two ways: 1) by evaluating the effect of decreasing the LOS of Atlas patients with long LOS (more than seven days) to the level of AIA patients with long LOS, and 2) by comparing the actual mean patient charges during AIA follow-up with using the pre-AIA mean daily charges during the AIA follow-up period and correcting for the effect of decreasing charges that occurred as discharge approached. The estimated savings achieved by decreasing long LOS were more than $100,000 per year, and estimated savings achieved using AIA follow-up charges were more than $1,801,930 per year.

Comparison of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small-lung cancer patients

Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a first-line treatment for advanced nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2006. This study retrospectively compared the efficacy of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone as the first-line and second-line treatment as well as the maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC patients. A total of 1,352 patients were included and we analyzed the efficacy evaluation according to the criteria of the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), survival, and adverse reactions. The data showed that for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment, the median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 11.5 and 17.0 months, respectively, compared to 7.0 and 14 months, respectively, in patients who received chemotherapy alone (P<0.01). With bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as maintenance treatment, the mPFS and mOS were 6.0 and 17.4 months, respectively, compared to 3.0 and 15.0 months, respectively, with chemotherapy alone (P<0.01). With bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as the second-line treatment, the mPFS was 3.0 months compared to only 2.0 months with chemotherapy alone (P<0.01). The overall responses to the different regimens showed that the remission rate with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was higher than that with chemotherapy alone (31.8% vs 25.5%, P<0.05), although there was no statistical difference in the disease control rate with either first- or second-line treatment. In conclusion, chemotherapy plus bevacizumab as the first-line and maintenance treatment, led to better curative rates and tolerable adverse reactions compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC patients. Bevacizumab combined with cytotoxic drugs was suitable as the second-line treatment for such patients.

"C" is for costs, and cancer, and conference: Highlights of the First European Conference on the Economics of Cancer

The first European conference on the economics of cancer was held in Brussels, Belgium on November 19-21, 1997. This international meeting was organized under the European Organization for Research and Treat ment of Cancer. Approximately 300 participants from around the world, including physicians, health care econ omists, epidemiologists, pharmaceutical industry repre sentatives, pharmacists, and other researchers, clinicians, and administrators attended the sessions. This interna tional mix of professions, along with the 12 plenary sessions, 4 tutorials, and over 100 contributed oral and poster presentations, made for a very interesting and informative conference. This review will focus on out comes measurement tools, pharmacoeconomics in clini cal trials, issues regarding the improvement of the quality and usability of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, and state of the art pharmacoeconomic reviews of hematopoietic growth factors and lung cancer. Abstracts of contributed presentations have already been published.1

Best supportive care: a euphemism for no care or a standard of good care?

This article seeks to address the question: Is best supportive care (BSC) in research a euphemism for no care or a standard of good care? The data regarding the ethical and methodological validity of BSC studies are reviewed. Most of the BSC studies published over the past 25 years are really treatment versus no treatment studies represented as BSC studies. By ignoring the best contemporaneous standards of BSC, standardizing practices in multicenter studies, validating participating centers, or documenting treatment delivery, researchers belie the stated intention of studying BSC. Most studies sought to evaluate if there was any benefit of a new anti-tumor treatment versus discontinuation of anti-tumor therapies. Overwhelmingly, and with few exceptions, the impact of BSC practices was not really part of the key research question. To be ethical and methodologically valid, BSC studies must incorporate standards consistent with contemporaneous, proven BSC practice standards. Work is underway to develop widely validated standards of practice for the control arm of best supportive care studies. These can be readily incorporated in to study development and evaluation.

Improving the Methodologic and Ethical Validity of Best Supportive Care Studies in Oncology: Lessons From a Systematic Review

Purpose

To systematically review the best supportive care (BSC) literature and to evaluate the ethical and methodologic validity issues by using widely acknowledged criteria.

Methods

Two search strings that included both cancer and supportive as terms (with random article type, or review or meta-analysis) explored databases from 1966 to 2008. Citations, abstracts, and papers were reviewed for inclusion criteria, and relevant data were extracted by two independent researchers. Data were validated for accuracy. Ethical and methodologic validity were evaluated by using the criteria derived from the Helsinki Requirements of the WMA; CONSORT statements for the evaluation of reports of randomized, controlled trials; and the universal requirements for ethical clinical research.

Results

Forty-three published papers were identified that described 32 studies, 20 of which incorporated the design of treatment plus supportive care (SC) versus SC alone, and 12 of which incorporated the design of treatment versus SC. Most of the studies had poor compliance to critical Helsinki requirements, to methodologic precautions derived from the CONSORT statement for studies involving a nonpharmacologic arm, and to four of seven universal requirements for ethical clinical research.

Conclusion

Lack of rigor in BSC studies has contributed to a generation of research with widespread ethical and methodologic shortcomings. Ad hoc SC and lack of standardization of SC delivery may be sources of systematic bias or error in BSC trials. Rectifying these shortcomings in future studies demands greater vigilance toward these issues by researchers, institutional review boards, editors, and peer reviewers. Given the prevalence of overlooked problems that are later identified, currently open BSC studies should be reevaluated by institutional review boards and researchers to check for ethical and methodologic validity, and identified shortcomings should be addressed.

Economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review the economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We systematically analysed the cost effectiveness of treatments for the different stages of NSCLC, with particular emphasis on more recently approved agents. Numerous economic analyses in NSCLC have been conducted, with a variety of methods and in a number of countries. In patients with localized disease, adjuvant chemotherapy appears to have greater cost effectiveness than observation; however, there are few published data. In locally advanced disease, combined modalities (chemotherapy, surgery and/or radiotherapy) are probably cost effective, but high-quality economic analyses are lacking. In advanced NSCLC, third-generation chemotherapies used in the first-line setting can be administered with acceptable incremental cost effectiveness. In the second-line setting, new agents (docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib) have acceptable cost effectiveness. The lack of cost-utility analyses for elderly patients and patients with a poor prognosis rules out firm conclusions. This review suggests that most therapies for NSCLC are cost effective when the patient has a good performance status, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under USD 50,000 per life-year gained in the majority of cases.

Combinations of three chemotherapeutic agents and two chemotherapeutic agents plus a targeted biologic agent in the treatment of advanced non small-cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the world. In the United States, more than 28% of all cancer deaths are from lung cancer. In the past decade, a number of new drugs were introduced into the treatment of lung cancer including taxanes, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and irinotecan. Combinations of one of these drugs with cisplatin, with carboplatin, or with one another were shown to be superior to best supportive care, to single-agent cisplatin, and in some instances, to a podophyllotoxin and cisplatin. Comparisons of the various two-drug combinations showed that they are equivalent in efficacy although there are differences in convenience, cost, and toxicity. Many of these two-drug combinations are less toxic than older combinations, which allowed for the development of three-drug combinations that could be given in full dose and with acceptable toxicity. Phase II trials of several three-drug combinations including carboplatin/paclitaxel/gemcitabine and cisplatin/vinorelbine/gemcitabine showed response rates and survival rates that were somewhat higher than anticipated with a two-drug combination. These data led to three randomized trials of a doublet combination versus a triplet combination. Each of these trials showed a higher response rate and higher toxicity rates with the triplet combination. The toxicity rates were still acceptable with the triplet combinations. The survival was also superior in the triplet arms of each of the randomized trials. Unfortunately, the sample size in each of these studies was small and the survival differences are not statistically significant. Therefore, additional larger randomized trials are sorely needed. During the past decade, new molecularly targeted agents were introduced into the treatment of lung cancer and completed phase I and II trials. Objective responses were noted with many of these new agents. Several combinations of doublet chemotherapy with a new targeted agent have completed phase II trials with encouraging results. Some of these new triplets are now in phase III randomized trials.

Oral versus intravenous administration of vinorelbine as a single agent for the first-line treatment of metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC): A randomized phase II trial

OBJECTIVES

Many patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) cannot tolerate intravenous chemotherapy. Orally active agents would be more convenient and thus could improve their quality of life.

METHODS

A total of 189 patients were randomized 2:1, 181 patients received treatment, 120 PO and 61 IV vinorelbine, 158 patients had stage IV and 31 stage IIIB disease. Among patients who received PO vinorelbine, the median age was 72 years, 62% were males; the Karnofski Performance Status (KPS) was 80-100 in 71%. These compare with a median age of 70 years, 56% male, and KPS of 80-100 in 65% of patients who received IV vinorelbine. Oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m2 was to be dose-escalated to 70 mg/m2 after the initial 3-weekly doses if there was no unacceptable toxicity. Intravenous vinorelbine was to be given 30 mg/m2 weekly.

RESULTS

Five patients (4%) on PO and 8 (13%) on IV vinorelbine had a confirmed partial response, 56 (44%) and 29 (46%) had stable disease, respectively. Median time-to-disease-progression was 16.6 weeks (PO) versus 23.9 weeks (IV), and the median survival was 26 weeks (PO) versus 40.9 weeks IV vinorelbine. Median survival on PO vinorelbine for patients with KPS 60-70 was 8.3 weeks versus 43 weeks (IV). On PO vinorelbine 59 patients (57%) were dose escalated, 9 (7.5%) were dose reduced, and 10 (8.3%) did not receive PO vinorelbine at week 4. Pharmacokinetic studies confirmed PO vinorelbine exposure was significantly less than IV exposure.

CONCLUSION

The inability to escalate the dose of PO vinorelbine above 60 mg/m2 weekly resulted in inferiority to IV vinorelbine at 30 mg/m2 weekly, especially in patients with poor performance status.

The cost of lung cancer in Alberta

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality. In addition, lung cancer has a significant economic impact on society.

OBJECTIVE

To present an economic analysis of the actual care costs of lung cancer which will allow comparison with, and verification of, cost estimates that were developed through modelling and opinion.

METHODS

A chart review was conducted of incident cases (circa 1998) of primary bronchogenic lung cancer. Cases were censored at two years from the date of diagnosis. Relevant clinical and health utilization data were collected. Health utilization data included hospital and institutional outpatient (ie, ambulatory clinic) costs. Cost estimates were derived for over 200 specific health services. The present analysis was performed from the economic perspective of the health care institution.

RESULTS

A total of 13,389 health service events were captured with an estimated total cost of $8.4 million. Laboratory tests, diagnostic imaging and ambulatory visits constituted 86% of the service events while patient admissions and therapy constituted 76% of the costs. The vast majority of overall costs occurred just before, or within, three months of diagnosis. The median nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer case costs were $10,928 (range $9,234 to $11,047) and $15,350 (range $13,033 to $21,436), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results agree with the literature that the majority of lung cancer case costs are realized around the date of diagnosis (ie, early phase). The present study illustrates Canadian health care system lung cancer case costs based on actual care received versus hypothetical care algorithms.

Palliative chemotherapy beyond three courses conveys no survival or consistent quality-of-life benefits in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

This randomised multicentre trial was conducted to establish the optimal duration of palliative chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We compared a policy of three vs six courses of new-generation platinum-based combination chemotherapy with regard to effects on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and WHO performance status (PS) 0–2 were randomised to receive three (C3) or six (C6) courses of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 4, Chatelut's formula, equivalent to Calvert's AUC 5) on day 1 and vinorelbine 25 mg m⁻² on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle. Key end points were QoL at 18 weeks, measured with EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and QLQ-LC13, and overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and need of palliative radiotherapy. Two hundred and ninety-seven patients were randomised (C3 150, C6 147). Their median age was 65 years, 30% had PS 2 and 76% stage IV disease. Seventy-eight and 54% of C3 and C6 patients, respectively, completed all scheduled chemotherapy courses. Compliance with QoL questionnaires was 88%. There were no significant group differences in global QoL, pain or fatigue up to 26 weeks. The dyspnoea palliation rate was lower in the C3 arm at 18 and 26 weeks (P<0.05), but this finding was inconsistent across different methods of analysis. Median survival in the C3 group was 28 vs 32 weeks in the C6 group (P=0.75, HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82–1.31). One- and 2-year survival rates were 25 and 9% vs 25 and 5% in the C3 and C6 arm, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 16 and 21 weeks in the C3 and C6 groups, respectively (P=0.21, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68–1.08). In conclusion, palliative chemotherapy with carboplatin and vinorelbine beyond three courses conveys no survival or consistent QoL benefits in advanced NSCLC.

[Historic landmarks in the study of lung cancer]

This study reviews the milestones which have been reached in the study of lung cancer, from its first early descriptions up until the end of the twentieth century. The study accompanies the birth of this new clinical entity, underlining the difficulties inherent in its diagnosis, its ever-growing increase and traces the growth of its aetiological factors, placing particular emphasis on smoking. In tandem with this, the study delves into the clinical aspects, along with new discoveries in imaging techniques and endoscopic and bioscopic techniques. It also looks at the histopathological classifications of bronchopulmonary tumours and the various staging systems which have been used over the course of time as well as the importance of mapping the disease and the different treatment weapons which have successively become available in the fight against it. The study also takes a look at the scales used in evaluating patients' physiological condition, the criteria used in evaluating response to oncostatic treatment and the role some international and national scientific societies and medical associations have played in adding to the increasing medical knowledge of lung cancer. The study clearly shows to whom we are indebted for each advance. This is a fascinating sweep of history - as is the story of all medical progress - and one we feel is important to understand, in order for us to see more clearly where we are now.

[Medico economic analysis in first line chemotherapy in advanced lung cancer]

Our objective was to analyse economic consequences modifying first line chemotherapy in treatment non small cell lung cancer IIIB-IV. Therefore a cost minimisation has been performed. Resources consumption were collected in a Pneumology department for 21 patients receiving previously mitomycine-ifosfamide-platin and for the 21 first patients receiving vinorelbine-platin, new patients diagnosed during year 2001. Costs were derived from hospital accounting system, economic analysis performed from the hospital and from the health French system points of view. Activity Synthetic Index point decrease of 2.9% per patient in vinorelbine-platin versus mitomycine-ifosfamide-platin, as an increase of 64.6% of hospital drug spending is registered (1,893 Euro versus 1,150 Euro) and an over cost of 15.7% for health French system (14179 Euro versus 12,257 Euro). Whatever the perspective of economic analysis, vinorelbine-platin arm is dominated by the mitomycine-ifosfamide-platin arm.

Pharmacoeconomics of Systemic Therapies for Lung Cancer

The purpose of this article is to review the economics of systemic therapies for the treatment of lung cancer. Lung cancer treatment is moderately expensive. The overall cost to society is significant given its high incidence. Most analyses in patients with small cell lung cancer focus on supportive care measures. The economics of chemotherapy in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer, as assessed in one study, shows alternating chemotherapy to be cost effective. Numerous economic analyses of chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been completed using varying methodologies in a number of countries. In patients with advanced NSCLC, third generation chemotherapy in the first-line setting can be administered within reasonable incremental cost effectiveness. Single-agent docetaxel chemotherapy in the second-line setting has also been shown to fall within a reasonable cost-effective range. Based on this review, systemic therapies for lung cancer are, for the most part, cost effective. Information on the cost-utility of systemic therapies is more limited. In a population of cancer patients with poor prognosis, the inclusion of quality indicators in the calculation of costs (i.e. cost-utility analyses) will be of great importance to refine our understanding of costs and benefits using a more global approach. Future economic analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy and novel targeted therapies will be of great interest.

A willingness-to-pay study of oral epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) are new agents in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies demonstrate objective tumor responses and symptom improvement, combined with minimal toxicity and the convenience of an oral agent. We evaluated patient utility through willingness-to-pay (WTP) for these agents in the treatment of advanced NSCLC in Canada.

METHODS

Advanced NSCLC patients and healthy subjects participated in a structured interview and bidding exercise, reviewing current evidence supporting EGFR TKI therapy in advanced NSCLC and patient willingness-to-pay for treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients and 54 healthy subjects participated. The median amount both groups were willing to pay for a month of oral EGFR TKI therapy was $100 CAD (range $0-5000 per month). A minority of NSCLC patients received employment income, the majority relying on disability, pension income, and social assistance for financial support. Affordability of these agents was a key concern for both advanced NSCLC patients and healthy subjects. Univariate predictors of WTP included marital status, prior chemotherapy treatment, receiving pension income or financial social assistance. In multivariate analysis, only prior chemotherapy remained a significant predictor of WTP (p=0.049).

CONCLUSION

Both advanced NSCLC patients and healthy subjects feel oral EGFR TKIs are worth paying for in the treatment of advanced NSCLC, but are willing to pay only a fraction of the market price. As many advanced NSCLC patients are financially disadvantaged, the potential for restricted access to newer therapies is of concern.

Estimation of the additional costs of chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

A large multicentre randomised trial, the Big Lung Trial, which in part compared supportive care with or without cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, provided an opportunity to evaluate the impact on the UK National Health Service of the costs incurred with the use of chemotherapy.

METHODS

This costing study was based on the retrospective collection of resource use data from hospital records. Case notes from 194 patients (98 chemotherapy + supportive care (C), 96 supportive care alone (NoC)) were inspected in eight centres recruiting the largest numbers of patients into the Big Lung Trial. Quantities were multiplied by fixed unit costs to calculate a total cost for each patient. The main outcome measure was the total cost incurred by the use of secondary care resources (including investigations, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical procedures, inpatient days, outpatient attendances, and hospice inpatient care) in the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients randomised to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy had an average of 3.4 more inpatient bed days than the mean of 11.9 days for patients randomised to supportive care alone, and more outpatient attendances. NoC patients were more likely to have received palliative radiotherapy. The mean total cost for C patients was 5355 sterling pound compared with 3595 sterling pound for the NoC group, difference 760 sterling pound (95% CI 781 sterling pound to 2742 sterling pound ). When split, the cost in the C group associated with the administration of chemotherapy was 1233 sterling pound and non-chemotherapy costs were 4122 sterling pound .

CONCLUSION

The additional cost of chemotherapy was not offset by a reduction in subsequent costs (as the non-chemotherapy costs were similar), so the survival benefit of about 10 weeks observed in the C group was achieved with the cost of chemotherapy administration.

Sequential therapy with Vinorelbine followed by Gemcitabine in patients with metastatic non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), performance status (PS) 2, or elderly with comorbidities—a multicenter phase II trial

BACKGROUND

High risk patients with metastatic non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) including patients with performance status (PS) 2 or elderly with comorbidities do poorly on combination chemotherapy regimens. We evaluated a sequential treatment with Vinorelbine followed by Gemcitabine to determine its effect on survival and the toxicity in this patient population.

METHODS

Forty-two evaluable patients, median age 75, 21 patients with PS 2 and 21 patients with PS 0 or 1, 37 patients with stage IV and five patients with stage III B NSCLC entered the trial. They received Vinorelbine 30 mg/m2, i.v., on days 1+8 every 3 weeks followed by Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, i.v., on days 1+8 every 3 weeks, each for two cycles for stable disease or one cycle after best response. Then stable patients continued until progressive disease on Vinorelbine or Gemcitabine according to the patient's preference.

RESULTS

A total of 126 cycles of Vinorelbine were administered to 42 patients, median of three cycles per patient and 74 cycles of Gemcitabine, median of 1.0 cycle per patient. Sixteen patients (38%) achieved PR, 11 patients on Vinorelbine, 5 patients on Gemcitabine; 12 patients (26%) had stable disease, 7 patients on Vinorelbine, 5 patients on Gemcitabine. Of 24 patients with progressive disease on Vinorelbine, 3 patients (12.5%) responded to Gemcitabine. Median time-to-first progression was 3.5 months, median survival was 8 months, 1-year survival was 12 patients (28.5%). No grade 3 or 4 toxicities were reported.

CONCLUSION

This sequential treatment offers excellent palliative treatment with minimal toxicity for high-risk patients with metastatic NSCLC.

CHART in lung cancer: Economic evaluation and incentives for implementation

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To investigate the financial consequences and the impact on daily implementation of CHART in lung cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were performed using Markov models, comparing the early and delayed costs and effects of CHART for NSCLC over a 4-year time span from a societal viewpoint. The outcome estimates were based on the CHART literature, the cost estimates on the standard practice of the Leuven University Hospitals, the radiotherapy costs being derived from an activity-based costing (ABC) programme developed in the department.

RESULTS

The additional societal cost per life-year gained was 9164 Euro, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year 11,576 Euro. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results, the incremental cost-utility ratio remaining well under 20,000 Euro/QALY in all tested circumstances. The threshold analyses found the results of the study to be sensitive to the cost of CHART and to the quality of life after treatment. More specifically, standard treatment would become the optimal treatment if CHART would have a higher cost or would result in more long-term side effects.

CONCLUSION

CHART should not be denied to patients with NSCLC on the basis of clinical or economic arguments. Other factors such as socio-economical, institutional, practical departmental and physician-bound barriers most probably explain the lack of implementation into daily practice.

Platinum-Based Versus Non-Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of the Published Literature

Purpose

This meta-analysis was performed to compare the activity, efficacy and toxicity of platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Methods

Randomized phase II and III clinical trials comparing first-line palliative platinum-based chemotherapy with the same regimen without platinum or with platinum replaced by a nonplatinum agent were identified by electronic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cancerlit, and hand searches of relevant abstract books and reference lists. Response rates, 1-year survival, and toxicity were analyzed. Subgroups of trials using third-generation agents were compared.

Results

Thirty-seven assessable trials were identified including 7,633 patients. A 62% increase in the odds ratio (OR) for response was attributable to platinum-based therapy (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 1.8; P < .0001). The 1-year survival rate was increased by 5% with platinum-based regimens (34% v 29%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.35; P = .0003). No statistically significant increase in 1-year survival was found when platinum therapies were compared to third-generation-based combination regimens (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.28; P = .17). The toxicity of platinum-based regimens was significantly higher for hematologic toxicity, nephrotoxicity, and nausea and vomiting, but not for neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia rate, or toxic death rate.

Conclusion

Response is significantly higher with platinum-containing regimens. One-year survival was not significantly prolonged when platinum-based therapies were compared with third-generation-based combination regimens. Toxicity is generally higher for platinum-based regimens.

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life

BACKGROUND

In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364).

RESULTS

65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.

Docetaxel and Gemcitabine administered on days 1 and 8 for metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC): a phase II multicenter trial

Docetaxel and Gemcitabine are active agents in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). They have different mechanism of action, minimal overlapping toxicity, and are easily administered on an outpatient basis. This phase II study evaluated Docetaxel administered with Gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 in a 3-week cycle, to determine its efficacy, while attempting to lower the regimen's toxicity, especially myelosuppression which can occur when Docetaxel is administered at full dose on day 1 only. Forty-three chemonaive patients, 40 evaluable, were entered in this trial between May 2001 and March 2002. Thirty-seven patients had stage IV and three patients had stage III B NSCLC, median age 58 (ages 32-78), median performance status (PS) 1 (range 0-2). They were treated with Docetaxel 36mg/m(2) and Gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 in a 3-week cycle. No growth factors were administered. Of 40 evaluable patients, 4 achieved partial response (10%), 25 stable disease (62.5%) and 11 progressive disease (27.5%). Median time-to-disease progression was 15 weeks. Median survival was 7.75 months. One year survival was 32.5% (13 patients). Hematologic toxicity was minimal, non-hematologic toxicity was easily treatable. Docetaxel, when given with Gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, is less myelotoxic, yet still an effective treatment for metastatic NSCLC.

Outcomes research in cancer clinical trial cooperative groups: the RTOG model

BACKGROUND

The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), a National Cancer Institute sponsored cancer clinical trials research cooperative, has recently formed an Outcomes Committee to assess a comprehensive array of clinical trial endpoints and factors impacting the net effect of therapy.

METHODS

To study outcomes in a consistent, comprehensive and coordinated manner, the RTOG Outcomes Committee developed a model to assess clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes important in clinical trials.

RESULTS

This paper reviews how the RTOG incorporates outcomes research into cancer clinical trials, and demonstrates utilization of the RTOG Outcomes Model to test hypotheses related to non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this example, the clinical component of the model indicates that the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy (RT) improves survival but increases the risk of toxicity. The humanistic component indicates that esophagitis is the symptom impacting quality of life the greatest and may outweigh the benefits in elderly (> or =70 years) patients. The economic component of the model indicates that accounting for quality-adjusted survival, concurrent chemoRT for the treatment of NSCLC is within the range of economically acceptable recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The RTOG Outcomes Model guides a comprehensive program of research that systematically measures a triad of endpoints considered important to clinical trials research.

Esophageal cancer: outcomes of surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and three-dimension conformal radiotherapy

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation are being utilized with increasing frequency in the multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer, although their effects on morbidity, mortality, and survival remain unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the outcome of multimodal treatment in patients with localized esophageal cancer treated at a single institution. Between 1995 and 2002, 118 patients underwent treatment for localized esophageal cancer, utilizing surgery alone, chemoradiation alone, or surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. There was no statistically significant difference in morbidity, mortality, or length of stay between the patients who received multimodal therapy when compared to surgery alone. A surgical resection after down-staging was possible in 9 out of 28 patients (32%) with a clinically non-resectable tumor (T4 or M1a). Forty-seven percent of the patients who received neoadjuvant therapy had a complete pathologic response with a 3-year survival of 59% as compared to only 20 months in those patients who did not achieve a complete response (P = 0.037). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy administered concomitantly with conformal radiotherapy can be performed safely in the treatment of esophageal cancer, without increasing the operative morbidity, mortality, or length of stay. The higher complete response rates to neoadjuvant treatment (as compared to other reports) may be due to the use of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or the novel use of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel.

Five years managing metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: experience at a teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is complex. Some studies have demonstrated that the care of patients with NSCLC may be suboptimal.

AIM

To review the management of patients with metastatic NSCLC treated at a single teaching hospital over a 5-year period.

METHOD

All patients with metastatic NSCLC treated at a single teaching hospital over a 5-year period (1998-2002) were identified. Data were collected by a retrospective record review.

RESULTS

Of 343 patients with metastatic NSCLC, 157 patients were deemed eligible for this review. Thirty-one patients (19%) were admitted to the Medical Oncology Unit at initial presentation. Twenty-four patients (15%) were not referred to either the Medical Oncology Unit or the Palliative Care Unit. Forty-four patients (28%) received chemotherapy, six of whom (14%) were enrolled onto a clinical trial. Six separate chemotherapy regimens were used. The median survival was 5 months and the 1-year survival rate was 19.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The present audit demonstrates some shortfalls in the optimal clinical care of patients with metastatic NSCLC at a large teaching hospital. The main selection criteria of consideration for chemotherapy are age, performance status and presence of symptoms. A subset of patients was not referred to either the Medical Oncology Unit or the Palliative Care Unit and consistency in the choice of chemotherapy was lacking. Survival data and the rate of patients entered onto clinical trials are acceptable; however, further improvements can be made by the institution of multidisciplinary clinics and the education of referring clinicians.

Palliative treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

It should go without saying that all patients with advanced NSCLC are entitled to the treatment and care described in this article. It is probably also true that in many countries where these patients are often elderly and socially disadvantaged, they may have very variable access to this treatment and care. There is reasonable research evidence that both chemotherapy and palliative radiotherapy are modestly effective in controlling symptoms and prolonging life for some patients, but with significant risks of unpleasant and sometimes life-threatening toxicity. For this large and important group of patients, however, there are a large number of unanswered questions about the best regimens to use, how best to select patients so that they get the greatest benefit, how to mitigate side effects, and how best to integrate all the available treatment options. There have been significantly more trials in chemotherapy, but we must not overlook the need for research into palliative radiotherapy and other supportive care measures. There is still plenty of scope for intelligent and coordinated research.

Economics of the clinical management of lung cancer in France: an analysis using a Markov model

To evaluate, according to the histologic type and initial stage, the mean cost (MC) of managing patients with lung cancer and the costs of the different management phases. A Markov approach was used to model these costs, based on the management of a representative nation-wide sample of 428 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The 18-month MC ranged from US$ 20 691 (95% CI: 5777–50 380 for diffuse non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to US$ 31 833 (95% CI: 15 866–64 455) for localised small-cell lung cancer (SCLC); first-line treatment costs ranged from 33.8% of MC for medically inoperable localised NSCLC to 74.6% for diffuse SCLC; second- or third-line treatment costs ranged from 7.8% of MC for surgically treated localised NSCLC to 32% for locally advanced NSCLC; and the cost of palliative care ranged from 9.1% of MC for locally advanced NSCLC to 39.9% for medically inoperable localised NSCLC. The cost of first-line chemotherapy and the percentage of actively treated patients impacted more on MC than did the cost of second- or third-line chemotherapy regimens or the cost of palliative care. In conclusion, this model provides a robust economic analysis of the cost of lung cancer management, and will be useful for assessing the economic consequences of future changes in patient management.

Chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a look behind and ahead

Lung cancer is still the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Western countries. The 5-year survival rate in 2002 remains dismal. In advanced disease, chemotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment, but a crucial step is whether the impact of chemotherapy in the management of this disease justifies either the toxicity on patients or the always-rising costs. A number of randomized trials demonstrated a prolonged survival for patients treated with chemotherapy compared with best supportive care. However, newer platinum-based combination regimens have failed to take a major step forward; chemotherapy alone has reached a plateau of activity that could be partially solved by integrating molecular-targeted strategies in clinical practice. Quality of life remains a key issue in clinical decisions for metastatic patients. New answers will come by encouraging all fit patients to join clinical trials.

Weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC): a dose-optimizing phase II trial

BACKGROUND

The current dose-optimizing Phase II study evaluated the effect of weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine on the response rate and survival of patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) using dose modifications that permitted optimal treatment intensity.

METHODS

Forty-five patients (40 with TNM Stage IV and 5 with TNM Stage IIIB NSCLC) were treated with gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m(2) via a 30-minute intravenous (i.v.) infusion and with paclitaxel at 100 mg/m(2) via a 60-minute i.v. infusion. The first 3 patients received chemotherapy on Days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks; the next 42 patients, participating in the Phase II trial, received chemotherapy on Days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

The 3 patients who received paclitaxel and gemcitabine on Days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks tolerated the treatment poorly. One patient died suddenly after Day 15 treatment during the first cycle, and the other 2 patients discontinued the treatment because of unacceptable toxicity before the third cycle of chemotherapy. The next 42 patients, 40 of whom were evaluable, entered this trial between May 2000 and April 2001. They received paclitaxel at 100 mg/m(2) i.v. followed by gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m(2) i.v. on Days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Two patients (5%) achieved complete response, 20 (50%) achieved partial response, and 8 (20%) had stable disease. Median survival (MS) was 9.8 months; and 1-year survival was 35%. The 32 patients with performance status (PS) 0 or 1 had an MS of 11 months; the 8 patients with PS 2 had an MS of 3 months. Toxicity (especially hematologic toxicity, neuropathy, and alopecia) was minimal.

CONCLUSION

A weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimen that incorporated the authors' dose modifications resulted in good efficacy with minimal toxicity.

The case for the introduction of new chemotherapy agents in the treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer in the wake of the findings of The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE)

After years of nihilism towards the use of chemotherapy for non small cell lung cancer in the UK it would appear that we have now reached the point where the use of chemotherapy to relieve symptoms, maintain quality of life, and prolong life, are now accepted for informed patients with good performance status willing to accept short-term toxicities. The use of the new agents vinorelbine, gemcitabine and paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin are all active regimens which offer small but real advantages over standard UK triple therapies (MVP, MIC) in terms of resource use, toxicity profiles and response rates. Overall survival could be increased by as much as 10% at one year on indirect comparisons. The use of docetaxel as second line therapy now offers lung cancer patients a second bite of the cherry, and should overall also prolong survival. It is only in embracing these small gains that we can currently make progress in the treatment of NSCLC.

Patterns, costs and cost-effectiveness of care in a trial of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

In a recently published randomised trial of chemotherapy versus palliative care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (the MIC2 trial), chemotherapy was shown to prolong survival without compromising quality of life. The study presented here examines patterns of care and their associated costs within a representative subgroup of patients from the MIC2 trial. The study consisted of 116 patients from the South Birmingham Health Authority area. The total health service cost for each patient from entry to trial to death or last follow-up was calculated by combining the resources used with their associated unit costs. The mean cost for patients with complete data on the chemotherapy arm was 6999 pounds sterling (standard deviation (S.D.) 4194 pounds sterling) compared to 4076 pounds sterling (S.D. 3078 pounds sterling) for those with complete data on the palliative care arm. Non-parametric bootstrapping gave a difference between treatment arms in mean cost of 2924 pounds sterling(95% CI 1234 pounds sterling - 4323 pounds sterling). With a difference in mean survival of 2.4 months, this translates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,620 pounds sterling per life year gained. Chemotherapy was found to be more costly than standard palliative care, mainly due to the increased number of hospital in-patient days.

Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy for nonsmall-cell lung cancer

After decades of research into its prevention and treatment, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in North America and Europe. Approximately 75% of all new lung cancer diagnoses are of the nonsmall-cell subtype, and less than 25% of these patients are potentially operable upon first detection. First-generation cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens for patients with metastatic disease achieved a median survival of 175 days, with 15 to 20% of patients alive at 1 year.In recent years, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and docetaxel have emerged as promising agents in the treatment of advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Evidence from randomized trials demonstrates that when these agents are combined with cisplatin, the objective tumor response is 25 to 40%, with a median overall survival approaching 300 days. In addition, recent studies have shown that single-agent docetaxel improves survival and quality of life in patients with platinum-refractory nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Since these modest but important improvements in the management of nonsmall-cell lung cancer are achieved at a significant cost, cost has emerged as a major consideration in health policy decision-making. This article reviews the pharmacoeconomic literature to provide guidance on the cost-effective use of chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer.

Economic analysis of the TAX 317 trial: docetaxel versus best supportive care as second-line therapy of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of second-line docetaxel compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the TAX 317 trial, a randomized clinical trial of second-line chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective CE analysis of the TAX 317 trial was undertaken, evaluating direct medical costs of therapy from the viewpoint of Canada's public health care system. Costs were derived in 1999 Canadian dollars, and resource use was determined through prospective trial data.

RESULTS

The incremental survival benefit in the docetaxel arm over BSC was 2 months (P =.047). The CE of docetaxel was $57,749 per year of life gained. For patients treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), the CE was $31,776 per year of life gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, CE estimates were most sensitive to changes in survival, ranging from $18,374 to $117,434 with 20% variation in survival at the recommended dose. The largest cost center in both arms was hospitalization, followed by the cost of drugs, investigations, radiotherapy, and community care. BSC patients had fewer hospitalizations than patients in the chemotherapy arm and were more often palliated at home.

CONCLUSION

Although the decision to treat should not be based on economic considerations alone, our CE estimate of $31,776 per year of life gained (at the currently recommended dose of docetaxel) is within an acceptable range of health care expenditures, and the total costs of therapy are similar to those of second-line palliative chemotherapy for other solid tumors.

Economic analysis of vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

It is increasingly important to have timely information about the economic impact of new cancer therapies in today's cost-conscious environment. Nearly 170 000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer annually in the United States. We performed an economic analysis alongside Southwest Oncology Group Trial S9509 to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus vinorelbine versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. There were no statistically significant differences in survival or cancer-related quality of life between the treatment arms.

METHODS

Use of both protocol and nonprotocol lung cancer-related health care was tracked for 24 months from the initiation of therapy. To determine expenditures, nationally standardized costs were applied to each type of health care service used, and these were summed over time. Lifetime expenditures and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each arm of the trial were calculated with the use of a multivariate regression technique that accounts for censoring. Student's t tests were used to compare the difference in costs between the arms. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Cancer-related health care costs over the period of observation averaged 40,292 dollars (95% CI = 36,226 dollars to 44,359 dollars) for patients in the cisplatin plus vinorelbine arm versus 48,940 dollars (95% CI = 44,674 dollars to 53,208 dollars) for patients in the carboplatin plus paclitaxel arm (P =.004), with a mean difference of 8648 dollars (95% CI = 2634 dollars to 14,662 dollars). Protocol chemotherapy drugs and medical procedures costs were statistically significantly higher in the paclitaxel arm (P =.0003 and P<.0001, respectively), whereas protocol chemotherapy delivery costs were statistically significantly higher in the vinorelbine arm (P<.0001). There was no difference between the arms in costs for blood products, supportive care medications, nonprotocol-related inpatient or outpatient care, and nonprotocol chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with carboplatin plus paclitaxel is substantially and statistically significantly more expensive than treatment with cisplatin plus vinorelbine. The majority of the cost difference is due to the additional cost of the protocol chemotherapy (approximately 12,000 dollars). Notable differences in costs of downstream health care were not apparent.

Local complications of non-small-cell lung cancer

Because of the stage-specific treatment of lung cancer, significant strides have been made in the treatment strategies for patients with non-small-cell carcinoma. Unfortunately, despite aggressive therapy, most patients will die within 5 years of diagnosis. Although the predominant cause of death will be secondary to the systemic nature of the cancer, most patients also will suffer significant decrements in their quality of life and functional status secondary to local complications. Addressing and treating the local complications of lung cancer aggressively may directly and immediately improve the quality of life and functional status of patients with extensive lung cancer. Improvements in the treatment of local complications of lung cancer that lead to improved performance status also may have an impact on the long-term survival of these patients.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer remains a devastating disease with few effective treatment options. Recent developments in chemotherapy have led to cautious optimism. This paper reviews the evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of four of the new generation drugs for patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified from 11 electronic databases (including Medline, Cochrane library and Embase), reference lists and contact with experts and industry was performed to assess clinical effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine. Clinical effectiveness was assessed using the outcomes of patient survival, quality of life, and adverse effects. Cost effectiveness was assessed by development of a costing model and presented as incremental cost per life year saved (LYS) compared with best supportive care (BSC).

RESULTS

Of the 33 RCTs included, five were judged to be of good quality, 10 of adequate quality, and 18 of poor quality. Gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine as first line treatment and docetaxel as second line treatment appear to be more beneficial for non-small cell lung cancer than BSC and older chemotherapy agents, increasing patient survival by 2-4 months against BSC and some comparator regimes. These gains in survival do not appear to be at the expense of quality of life. Survival gains were delivered at reasonable levels of incremental cost effectiveness for vinorelbine, vinorelbine with cisplatin, gemcitabine, gemcitabine with cisplatin, and paclitaxel with cisplatin regimens compared with BSC.

CONCLUSION

Although the clinical benefits of the new drugs appear relatively small, their benefit to patients with lung cancer appears to be worthwhile and cost effective.

Oxaliplatin plus vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: final results of a multicenter phase II study

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin and vinorelbine are both active agents against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In a previous phase I trial, we showed that oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, day 1) and vinorelbine (26 mg/m2/day, days 1 and 8) can be safely combined when given every 21 days. We completed the evaluation of this new platinum-based doublet in advanced NSCLC patients in a multicenter phase II study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight chemotherapy-naïve patients (22 men and six women: median age 58 years, range 33-70), including 20 with stage IV disease, received this out-patient combination, with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3-receptor agonists as the only prophylactic measure.

RESULTS

A total of 117 cycles were given, for a median of three per patient (range 1-8). Of 26 eligible patients, nine achieved a partial response (WHO criteria), giving an objective response rate of 35% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17% to 56%]. The median progression free survival was 5.0 months (95% CI 3.1 to 6.9), median overall survival was 9.8 months (95% CI 2.2 to 17.5) and the 1-year survival rate was 37%. Neutropenia was the principal toxicity, grade 4 occurring in 11 patients (39%) and 25 cycles (22%). Four patients (14%) experienced one episode of febrile neutropenia each. Acute oxaliplatin-related neurosensory toxicity was prevalent, but was mild to moderate in the majority of patients (82%) and reversible. Grade 1/2 vomiting (65% of patients) and diarrhea (32% of patients) were easily managed.

CONCLUSIONS

The oxaliplatin-vinorelbine doublet is a safe and active out-patient combination. It may represent an interesting alternative in the management of patients with NSCLC, and serve as a new doublet to which other active agents could be added.

The silent epidemic: tobacco and the evolution of lung cancer and its treatment

Considered a rare disease during the 19th century, lung cancer became the most virulent and lethal cause of cancer mortality by the end of the 20th century. In this paper, lung cancer and its treatment are addressed within the social, cultural, economic, and political context of the last century. Because lung cancer is related to the consumption of cigarettes, the battles over tobacco control are highlighted. Four time periods are addressed: the early years (1900-1930), beginning of the epidemic (1930-1960), defining the problem (1960-1980), and expanding options (1980-1990s). Although improvements have been made in science and technology, attempts at finding curative treatments have met with little success. Smoking cessation and efforts to control tobacco (especially among children and adolescents) remain the most important factors if the incidence of lung cancer is to be curtailed in the future. Providing care to individuals with the illness is a current challenge. Research examining the efficacy of treatments and their effect on survival, health-related quality of life, and cost outcomes is essential and can be best achieved through the efforts of multidisciplinary teams.

Economic analysis of randomized, controlled trials

To facilitate the comparison of different treatment strategies, measures have been developed that bring together clinical, quality-of-life, and economic outcomes into summary measures such as the quality-adjusted life year, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility ratios. A number of different types of economic evaluations have been developed, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Performance of economic analyses in association with randomized, controlled trials (RCT) has gained increasing enthusiasm in recent years. However, economic measures in RCTs are often outcomes of secondary interest and associated with frequent missing data and inadequate sample size. Variability in the cost measures used and the lack of agreement on clinically meaningful cost differences further limit the conclusions derived from such studies. Economic analyses should be limited to large trials with important trade-offs between efficacy and cost. The strengths and limitations of such analyses are discussed, and guidelines are offered for proper economic analyses in randomized, controlled trials.

Flexible chemotherapy regimen with gemcitabine and vinorelbine for metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: a phase II multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

This Phase II study evaluated a flexible 3- or 4-week dosing schedule of gemcitabine and vinorelbine to determine its effect on response rate and survival of patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).

METHODS

Thirty-four response-evaluable patients, 24 with performance status (PS) 0-1 and 10 with a PS of 2, 30 with Stage IV, and 4 with Stage IIIB NSCLC were treated with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenously (first 15 patients) or 30 mg/m(2) intravenously (next 19 patients) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle, if on Day 15 neutrophils were > or = 1500/uL and platelets > or = 100,000/uL. If chemotherapy could not be administered on Day 15, then Day 22 became Day 1 of the next cycle.

RESULTS

When vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) was given with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), 11 patients received 4-week cycles, 3 patients 3-week cycles, and 1 patient both 3- and 4-week cycles. With vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), 7 patients received 4-week cycles, 2 patients 3-week cycles, and 10 patients both 3- and 4-week cycles. The partial response rate for 34 patients was 53% (18 patients). Median survival (MS) was 11.1 months, and 1-year survival 50% (17 patients). Patients with PS 0+1 had a MS of 17.5 months compared with patients with PS 2, who had MS of 3.3 months. Patients < 70 years of age had a MS of 18 months, and those >/= 70 years had a MS of 5.5 months.

CONCLUSION

This flexible schedule with gemcitabine and vinorelbine enabled optimal dose delivery and suggested excellent efficacy but less toxicity than treatment with platinum regimens.

Management of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is one of the most lethal cancers, causing more deaths of men and women than any other cancer in the United States. Non-small-cell lung cancers account for most the newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer. Many patients with non-small-cell lung cancer present with advanced-stage disease and are not appropriate candidates for combined modality therapy. Although these patients have incurable disease, they have a chance of achieving improved 1-year survival rates and palliation of symptoms with chemotherapy. The performance status of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer is the most important determinant of response to chemotherapy.

Best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer: is there a role for radiotherapy and chemotherapy?

Best Supportive Care (BSC) is the treatment of choice when cure is not achievable with anticancer treatments and involves management of disease-related symptoms. In the palliative treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) radiation therapy has for a long time been the cornerstone of symptom management, although the best schedule is still to be defined. Chemotherapy, on the other hand, has been excluded from classical definitions of BSC and has been reserved only for selected patient populations in which a survival benefit was demonstrated using cisplatin-based regimens. We reviewed randomized trials on both palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy in order to assess the impact of anticancer treatments on quality of life in advanced NSCLC patients. While no randomized trials compared radiation therapy with a control arm not including it, several randomized trials assessed the use of different schedules. Hypofractionated schedules seem to have comparable palliative activity when compared with the standard fractionated regimens, at least in metastatic, poor-prognosis patients. In locally advanced, inoperable NSCLC higher radiation doses administered with conventional fractionation achieve better results in terms of local control and survival. The rate of palliation of local symptoms is high, being 60-80% for chest pain and hemoptysis, while breathlessness and cough are controlled at a somewhat lower rate (50-70%). General symptoms (fatigue, anorexia, and depression) are affected in a minority of patients. Chemotherapy was compared with BSC in several randomized trials, in some of which an analysis of the quality of life was included. Results are consistent in favor of its palliative role and, when local symptom control is assessed, rates of palliation seem similar to those achieved by radiation. Benefits apply to metastatic NSCLC patients with good performance status, low body weight loss, age below 70-75. However, some studies support the use of chemotherapy also in patients with poor prognostic features. A comparison in terms of quality of life and symptom palliation between different chemotherapy regimens is the object of few trials. Both chemotherapy and radiation have an important role in the palliative treatment of advanced NSCLC patients and should be included in BSC programs. Future randomized trials should assess the best way of combining these two approaches.