Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.
Open Access
- 16 August 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 92 (16) , 1321-1329
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.16.1321
Abstract
Background: Best supportive care has long been considered to be the standard therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is now evidence from randomized trials that a number of chemotherapy regimens can palliate cancer-related symptoms and modestly improve survival. We show how cost-effectiveness 1analyses can be used to make choices between different (ambulatory) chemotherapy regimens. Methods: Clinical algorithms describing the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of metastatic NSCLC were incorporated into Statistics Canada's Population Health Model. Using consistent methodology, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of several chemotherapeutic interventions: a combination of vindesine (VDS) plus cisplatin, etoposide (VP-16) plus cisplatin, vinblastine (VLB) plus cisplatin, vinorelbine (Navelbine; NVB) plus cisplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol) plus cisplatin, and gemcitabine (GEM) and NVB alone. We calculated the total chemotherapy costs in 1995 Canadian dollars, the cost per case, the average life-years saved, and the cost per life-year saved. Using the Population Health Model, we then constructed an advanced decision framework that rank-ordered the various treatment regimens so as to optimize benefit below various cost-effectiveness thresholds. Results: One regimen (VLB plus cisplatin) appears to result in better survival and lower health care expenditures than best supportive care. By use of cost-effectiveness thresholds of $25 000 and $50 000 per life-year gained, NVB plus cisplatin is the preferred regimen. When quality of life is considered, however, GEM is preferred to NVB plus cisplatin at a threshold value of $50 000. At thresholds of $75 000 and $100 000, paclitaxel plus cisplatin at a dose of 135 mg/m2 is the preferred regimen. At thresholds of $50 000 and above, best supportive care is the least preferred regimen. Conclusions: This decision framework allows the comparison of different treatment regimens based on various cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our analysis also supports the use of chemotherapy regimens and the abandonment of best supportive care as the standard of care for patients with advanced NSCLC. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321–9].Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cancer statistics, 1996CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1996
- Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trialsBMJ, 1995
- Chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: how much benefit is enough?Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1993
- A randomized trial of alternating chemotherapy versus best supportive care in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1991
- Symptomatic treatmentversus combination chemotherapy for patients with extensive non-small cell lung cancerCancer, 1991
- A randomised trial of cisplatin and vindesine versus supportive care only in advanced non-small cell lung cancerBritish Journal of Cancer, 1990
- Supportive care versus supportive care and combination chemotherapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Does chemotherapy make a difference?Cancer, 1989
- Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer--report of a Canadian multicenter randomized trial.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1988
- A randomized trial of the four most active regimens for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1986
- Benefits of polychemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell bronchogenic carcinomaCancer, 1982