Clegg, A. J., Scott, David A., Sidhu, M. K., Hewitson, P. and Waugh, Norman. (2001) A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer. Health Technology Assessment, Vol.5 (No.32). ISSN 1366-5278

Preview	Text WRAP_Waugh_lungcancer mon532.pdf Download (909Kb) | Preview
Preview	Text (Cover sheet) WRAP_waugh7_Coversheet_FinalVersion.pdf - Published Version Download (168Kb) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The incidence of lung cancer is declining following a drop in smoking rates, but it is still the leading cause of death from cancer in England and Wales, with about 30,000 deaths a year. Survival rates for lung cancer are poor everywhere, but they appear to be better in the rest of the European Community and the USA than in the UK. Only about 5 per cent of people with lung cancer survive for 5 years, and nearly all of these are cured by surgery after fortuitously early diagnosis. At present, only a small proportion of patients (probably about 5 per cent) with non-small-cell lung cancer are being given chemotherapy. Some centres treat a greater proportion. OBJECTIVES: This review examines the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four of the newer drugs - vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel and docetaxel - used for treating the most common type of lung cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer). The first three drugs are used for first-line treatment, but at present docetaxel is used only after first-line chemotherapy has failed. METHODS: This report was based on a systematic literature review and economic modelling, supplemented by cost data. RESULTS - NUMBER AND QUALITY OF STUDIES: A reasonable number of randomised trials were found - three for docetaxel, six for gemcitabine, five for paclitaxel and 13 for vinorelbine. The quality of the trials was variable but good overall. There was a wide range of comparators. Some trials compared chemotherapy with best supportive care (BSC), which involves care that aims to control symptoms, with palliative radiotherapy if needed, but not to prolong life. Others compared the newer drugs against previous drugs or combinations. RESULTS - SUMMARY OF BENEFITS: The gains in duration of survival with the new drugs are modest - a few months - but worthwhile in a condition for which the untreated survival is only about 5 months. There are also gains in quality of life compared with BSC, because on balance the side-effects of some forms of chemotherapy have less effect on quality of life than the effects of uncontrolled spread of cancer. RESULTS - COSTS: The total cost to the NHS of using these new drugs in England and Wales might be about GBP 10 million per annum, but is subject to a number of factors. There would be non-financial constraints on any increase in chemotherapy for the next few years, such as staffing; the number of patients choosing to have the newer forms of chemotherapy is not yet known; and the costs of the drugs may fall, for example, as generic forms appear. RESULTS - COST PER LIFE-YEAR GAINED: The available data did not provide an entirely satisfactory basis for cost-effectiveness calculations. The main problem was the lack of direct comparisons of the new drugs. In order to strengthen the analysis, three different modelling approaches were used: pairwise comparisons using trial data; cost-minimisation analysis, as if all the new regimens were of equal efficacy; and cost-effectiveness analysis pooling the results of several trials with different comparators, giving indirect comparisons of the new drugs by using BSC as the common comparator. A number of different scenarios were explored through extensive sensitivity analysis in each model. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost per life-year saved or incremental cost, versus BSC. There was insufficient evidence from which to derive cost per quality-adjusted life-year. In first-line treatment, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and the lower-dose paclitaxel plus cisplatin combinations generally performed well against BSC under a range of different scenarios and especially when given as a maximum of 3 cycles. Incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) versus BSC varied depending on scenario, but baseline figures based on trial data and protocols were: single-agent vinorelbine, pound 2194 per LYG; vinorelbine plus cisplatin, pound 5206; single-agent gemcitabine, pound 5690; gemcitabine plus cisplatin, pound 10,041; and paclitaxel plus cisplatin, pound 8537. In second-line chemotherapy, docetaxel gave a cost per LYG of pound 17,546, again well within the range usually accepted as cost-effective. However, in routine care, the impact of therapy would be regularly reviewed, and continuation would depend on response, side-effects, patient choice and clinical judgement. Chemotherapy would be stopped in non-responders, making chemotherapy more cost-effective. A 'real-life' scenario in which 60 per cent of patients receive only 1 or 2 cycles of chemotherapy gives much lower costs per LYG, with single-agent gemcitabine, single-agent vinorelbine, and paclitaxel plus platinum appearing to be cost-saving compared with BSC; the incremental cost of gemcitabine plus cisplatin would be pound 2478 per LYG, and of vinorelbine plus cisplatin, pound 2808. At the very least, gains in duration of survival were achieved without diminution of quality of life (at best, they improved quality) and with relatively low incremental cost. Comparisons among the individual drugs should be viewed with caution because they have had to be based on indirect comparisons. RESULTS - LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS: Each of the three models had limitations. The cost-effectiveness estimates from the pairwise comparisons were based on single studies. The cost-minimisation analysis assumed that the regimens have equal efficacy in practice. The cost-effectiveness analysis had to be based on pooling data from individual trials. The costs of BSC, inpatient stay and outpatient visits were from Scottish data. Median rather than mean data on duration of survival have been used in the analysis, because most of the trials reported only median data. Median survival and number of drug cycles were calculated by averaging across a number of studies, rather than being reliant on one particular study. The costs of the less expensive antiemetics cited in the trials were omitted. The use of more modern and costly antiemetics would have a modest detrimental effect on cost-effectiveness. In the absence of published data, an estimate was made of the cost of side-effects of chemotherapy, in particular hospital admissions, and applied to all the new regimens. In practice, admissions related to side-effects and their respective costs are likely to vary by regimen. CONCLUSIONS: The new drugs for non-small-cell lung cancer extend life by only a few months compared with BSC, but appear to do so without net loss in quality of life and at a cost per LYG that is much lower than for many other NHS activities. Depending on assumptions used, these new drugs range from being cost-effective, as conventionally accepted, to being cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEWER DRUGS: One of the present constraints on chemotherapy is availability of inpatient beds. The advent of newer and gentler forms of chemotherapy given on an outpatient basis would not only overcome this, but it would allow more patients to be treated. This might apply particularly to older patients. The treatment of more patients would increase workload for oncologists, cancer nurses and pharmacists. The Government has already announced increased expenditure on staff for cancer care. The previously pessimistic attitudes to chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer are changing in the wake of the newer agents, and this shift is likely to increase referral. CONCLUSIONS - NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Recent advances in chemotherapy are welcome, but their effects remain small for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Much more research is needed into better drugs, better combinations, new ways of assessing the likelihood of response and especially direct comparisons between the new regimens. This research would be aided by having a greater proportion of patients involved in trials, but there will be infrastructure implications of increased participation.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0254 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology (including Cancer)
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Lungs -- Cancer -- Treatment, Vinorelbine -- Effectiveness, Paclitaxel -- Effectiveness, Docetaxel -- Effectiveness
Journal or Publication Title:	Health Technology Assessment
Publisher:	NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
ISSN:	1366-5278
Date:	2001
Volume:	Vol.5
Number:	No.32
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Funder:	NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (Great Britain)
References:	1. Coleman MP, Babb P, Domiecki P, Grosclaude P, Honjo S, Jones J, et al. Cancer survival trends in England and Wales, 1971–1995: deprivation and NHS region. London: The Stationery Office; 1999. 2. Department of Health. The NHS Cancer Plan. A plan for investment. A plan for reform. London: The Stationery Office; 2000. 3. Office for National Statistics. Health statistics quarterly. London: The Stationery Office; 2000. 4. Department of Health. NHS performance indicators. 2001. URL: http://www.doh.gov.uk/ nhsperformanceindicators/ 5. Acheson D (chairman). Independent inquiry into inequalities in health: report. London: The Stationery Office; 1998. 6. Welsh Thoracic Society. Lung cancer in Wales: a longitudinal retrospective audit of the hospital management of patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer in Wales in 1996. Cardiff: Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit (CESU); 2000. 7. Crook A, Duffy A, Girling DJ, Souhami RL, Parmar MK. Survey on the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in England and Wales. Eur Respir J 1997;10:1552–8. 8. Souquet PJ, Chauvin F, Boissel JP, Cellerino R, Cormier Y, Ganz PA, et al. Polychemotherapy in advanced non small cell lung cancer: a metaanalysis. Lancet 1993;342:19–21. 9. Smith IE. Palliative chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. BMJ 1994;308:429–30. 10. Hardy JR, NobleT, Smith IE. Symptom relief with moderate dose chemotherapy (mitomycin-C, vinblastine and cisplatin) in advanced non small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 1989;60:764–6. 11. Marino P, Pampallona S, Preatoni A, Cantoni A, Invernizzi F. Chemotherapy vs supportive care in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Results of a meta-analysis of the literature. Chest 1994;106:861–5. 12. Thatcher N, Anderson H, Betticher DC, Ranson M. Symptomatic benefit from gemcitabine and other chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: changes in performance status and tumour-related symptoms. Anticancer Drugs 1995;6(Suppl 6):39–48. 13. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patient data from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1995;311:899–909. 14. Anderson H, Hopwood P, Stephens RJ, Thatcher N, Cottier B, Nicholson M, et al. Gemcitabine plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer – a randomized trial with quality of life as the primary outcome. Br J Cancer 2000;83:447–53. 15. Jaakimainen L, Goodwin PJ, Pater J, Warde P, Murray N, Rapp E. Counting the costs of chemotherapy in a National Cancer Institute of Canada randomised trial in NSCLC. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1301–9. 16. Macbeth F. Managing patients with lung cancer. All evidence was considered when COIN guidelines were drawn up. BMJ 2000;320:1604. 17. O’Brien MER, Cullen M. Managing patients with lung cancer. Guidelines must help bring us in line with European standards. BMJ 2000;320:1604. 18. The National Cancer Guidance Group. Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the research evidence. London: NHS Executive, Department of Health; 1998. 19. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12. 20. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2000. URL: http://agatha.york.ac.uk/darehp.htm 21. Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, Mattson K, Gralla R, O’Rourke M, et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2095–103. 22. Roszkowski K, Pluzanska A, Krzakowski M, Smith AP, Saigi E, Aasebo U, et al. A multicenter, randomized, phase III study of docetaxel plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic or non-resectable localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2000;27:145–57. 23. Fossella FV, Devore R, Kerr RN, Crawford J, Natale M, Dunphy F, et al. Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinumcontaining chemotherapy regimes. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2354–62. 24. Bokkel-Huinink WW, Bergman B, Chemaissani A, Dornoff W, Drings P, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, et al. Single-agent gemcitabine: an active and better tolerated alternative to standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 1999;26:85–94. 25. Manegold C, Bergman B, Chemaissani A, Dornoff W, Drings P, Kellokumpu LP, et al. Singleagent gemcitabine versus cisplatin–etoposide: early results of a randomised phase II study in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 1997;8:525–9. 26. Cardenal F, Lopez-Cabrerizo MP, Anton A, Alberola V, Massuti B, Carrato A, et al. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine–cisplatin versus etoposide– cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:12–18. 27. Crino L, Scagliotti GV, Ricci S, De Marinis F, Rinaldi M, Gridelli C, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3522–30. 28. Perng RP, Chen YM, Ming LJ, Tsai CM, Lin WC, Yang KY, et al. Gemcitabine versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer in a phase II randomized study. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2097–102. 29. Sandler AB, Nemunaitis J, Denham C, von Pawel J, Cormier Y, Gatzemeier U, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall- cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:122–30. 30. Bonomi P, Kim K, Fairclough D, Cella D, Kugler J, Rowinsky E, et al. Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:623–31. 31. Chang AY, Kim K, Glick J, Anderson T, Karp D, Johnson D. Phase II study of taxol, merbarone, and piroxantrone in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group results. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:388–94. 32. Ranson M, Davidson N, Nicolson M, Falk S, Carmichael J, Lopez P, et al. Randomized trial of paclitaxel plus supportive care versus supportive care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1074–80. 33. Postmus PE, Giaccone G, Debruyne C, Sahmoud T, Splinter TA, van Zandwijk N. Results of the phase II EORTC study comparing paclitaxel/cisplatin with teniposide/cisplatin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative Group. Semin Oncol 1996;23(Suppl 12):10–13. 34. Gatzemeier U, von Pawel J, Gottfried M, ten Velde GPM, Mattson K, DeMarinis F, et al. Phase III comparative study of high-dose cisplatin versus a combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3390–9. 35. Giaccone G, Splinter TA, Debruyne C, Kho GS, Lianes P, van Zandwijk N, et al. Randomized study of paclitaxel–cisplatin versus cisplatin–teniposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2133–41. 36. Baldini E, Tibaldi C, Ardizzoni A, Salvati F, Antilli A, Portalone L, et al. Cisplatin–vindesine– mitomycin (MVP) vs cisplatin–ifosfamide– vinorelbine (PIN) vs carboplatin–vinorelbine (CaN) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a FONICAP randomized phase II study. Italian Lung Cancer Task Force (FONICAP). Br J Cancer 1998;77:2367–70. 37. Colleoni M, Vicario G, Pancheri F, Sgarbossa G, Nelli P, Manente P. A randomized phase II trial of cisplatinum plus mitomycin-C plus vinorelbine and carboplatin plus vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Oncol 1997;10:619–22. 38. Colucci G, Gebbia V, Galetta D, Riccardi F, Cariello S, Gebbia N. Cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by ifosfamide plus epirubicin vs the opposite sequence in advanced unresectable stage III and metastatic stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized study of the Southern Italy Oncology Group (GOIM). Br J Cancer 1997;76:1509–17. 39. Comella P, Frasci G, De Cataldis G, Panza N, Cioffi R, Curcio C, et al. Cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide + vinorelbine in advanced non-smallcell lung cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Gruppo Oncologico Campano. Br J Cancer 1996;74:1805–11. 40. Crawford J, O’Rourke M, Schiller JH, Spiridonidis CH, Yanovich S, Ozer H, et al. Randomized trial of vinorelbine compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2774–84. 41. Depierre A, Chastang C, Quoix E, Lebeau B, Blanchon F, Paillot N, et al. Vinorelbine versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 1994;5:37–42. 42. Furuse K, Fukuoka M, Kuba M, Yamori S, Nakai Y, Negoro S, et al. Randomized study of vinorelbine (VRB) versus vindesine (VDS) in previously untreated stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The Japan Vinorelbine Lung Cancer Cooperative Study Group. Ann Oncol 1996;7:815–20. 43. Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Douillard JY, Pujol JL, Alberola V, Monnier A, et al. Randomized study of vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a European multicenter trial including 612 patients. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:360–7. 44. Lorusso V, Pezzella G, Catino AM, Guida M, Scoditti S, Lorenzo R, et al. Results of a clinical multicentric randomized phase II study of nonsmall cell lung cancer treated with vinorelbine– cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone. Int J Oncol 1995;6:65–8. 45. Martoni A, Guaraldi M, Piana E, Strocchi E, Petralia A, Busutti L, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial on high-dose epirubicin plus cisplatinum versus vinorelbine plus cis-platinum in advanced non small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 1998;22:31–8. 46. Pérol M, Guerin JC, Thomas P, Poirier R, Carles P, Robinet G, et al. Multicenter randomized trial comparing cisplatin–mitomycin–vinorelbine versus cisplatin–mitomycin–vindesine in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. ‘Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancerologie’. Lung Cancer 1996;14:119–34. 47. Wozniak AJ, Crowley JJ, Balcerzak SP, Weiss GR, Spiridonidis CH, Baker LH, et al. Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2459–65. 48. The Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study Group (ELVIS). Effects of vinorelbine on quality of life and survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:66–72. 49. Comella P, Frasci G, Panza N, Manzione L, Lorusso V, Di Rienzo G, et al. Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine combination therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1526–34. 50. Comella P, Frasci G, Panza N, Manzione L, De Cataldis G, Cioffi R, et al. Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1451–7. 51. Kosmidis P, Mylonakis N, Dimopoulos A, Pavlidis N, Fountzilas G, Samantas E, et al. Combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized study. Preliminary results. Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Semin Oncol 2000;27(Suppl 2):3–8. 52. Perry MC, Ihde DC, Herndon JE, Grossbard ML, Grethein SJ, Atkins JN, et al. Paclitaxel/ifosfamide or navelbine/ifosfamide chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: CALGB 9532. Lung Cancer 2000;28:63–8. 53. Frasci G, Lorusso V, Panza N, Comella P, Nicolella G, Bianco A, et al. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2529–36. 54. Berthelot JM, Will BP, Evans WK, Coyle D, Earle CC, Bordeleau L. Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321–9. 55. Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: an estimate using the Population Health Model lung cancer module. Semin Oncol 1997;24(Suppl 7):S7. 56. Copley-Merriman C, Corral J, King K, Whiteside R, Voi M, Dorr FA, et al. Economic value of gemcitabine compared to cisplatin and etoposide in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 1996;14:45–61. 57. Copley-Merriman C, Martin C, Johnson D, Sacristan JA, Drings P, Bosanquet N. Economic value of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1996;5:90–8. 58. Tennvall GR, Fernberg JO. Economic evaluation of gemcitabine single agent therapy compared with standard treatment in stage IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer. Med Oncol 1998;15:129–36. 59. Palmer AJ, Brandt A. The cost-effectiveness of four cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of stages IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer: an Italian perspective. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 1996;51:279–88. 60. Sacristan JA, Kennedy MT, Rosell R, Cardenal F, Anton A, Lomas M, et al. Economic evaluation in a randomized phase III clinical trial comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin and etoposide/cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2000;28:97–107. 61. Evans WK. An estimate of the cost effectiveness of gemcitabine in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1996;23(Suppl 10):82–9. 62. Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Neighbors DM, McSorley PA, Le Chevalier T. Economic evaluation of a randomized clinical trial comparing vinorelbine, vinorelbine plus cisplatin, and vindesine plus cisplatin for non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2166–73. 63. Hillner BE, Smith TJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of three regimens using vinorelbine (navelbine) for non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1996;23(Suppl 5):25–30. 64. Evans WK, Le Chevalier T. The cost-effectiveness of navelbine alone or in combination with cisplatin in comparison to other chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:2249–55. 65. Evans WK. A comparison with standard chemotherapy and best supportive care: cost-effectiveness of vinorelbine alone or vinorelbine plus cisplatin for stage IV NSCLC. Oncology 1998;12(Suppl 5): 18–26. 66. Vergnenegre A, Pérol M, Pham E. Cost analysis of hospital treatment – two chemotherapic regimens for non-surgical non-small cell lung cancer. GFPC (Groupe Français Pneumo Cancerologie). Lung Cancer 1996;14:31–44. 67. Earle CC, Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 1999;80:815–20. 68. Annemans L, Giaccone G, Vergnenegre A. The cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel + cisplatin is similar to that of teniposide + cisplatin in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: a multicountry analysis. Anticancer Drugs 1999;10:605–15. 69. Berrino F. Survival of cancer patients in Europe: the Eurocare study. In: Berrino F, Sant M, Verdecchia A, Copocaccia R, Hakulinen T, Esteve J, editors. Survival of cancer patients in Europe. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Scientific Publications; 1995. Report No.: 132. 70. Netten A, Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2000. 71. Dinnes J, Waugh N, Hudson R, Wordsworth S. Breast cancer. Aberdeen: Scottish Health Purchasing Information Centre; 1997. URL: http://www.nhsconfed.net/shpic 72. Evans WK. Cost-effectiveness of vinorelbine alone or vinorelbine plus cisplatin for stage IV NSCLC. Oncology (Huntingt) 1998;12(Suppl 4):18–25. 73. Wolstenholme JL,Whynes DK. The hospital costs of treating lung cancer in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 1999;80:215–18. 74. Le Chevalier T, Pujol JL, Douillard JY, Alberola V, Monnier A, Riviere A, et al. A three-arm trial of vinorelbine plus cisplatin, vindesine plus cisplatin, and single-agent vinorelbine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: an expanded analysis. Semin Oncol 1994;21(Suppl 10):28–33. 75. Manegold C, Drings P, von Pawel J, Ricci S, Dornoff W, van Walree N, et al. A randomized study of gemcitabine monotherapy versus etoposide/ cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1997;24(Suppl 8):S8. 76. Gore SM, Fontaine O, Pierce NF. Impact of rice based oral rehydration solution on stool output and duration of diarrhoea: meta-analysis of 13 clinical trials. BMJ 1992;304:287–91. 77. Silvestri G, Pritchard R, Welch HG. Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. BMJ 1998;317:771–5. 78. Raby B, Pater J, Mackillop W. Does knowledge change practice? Another look at the management of non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:1904–11. 79. Rosenthal MA, Webster VJ, Gebski RC, Stuart-Harris AO, Langlands AO, Boyages J. The cost of treating small cell lung cancer. Med J Aust 1992;156:605–10. 80. Waugh N, Scott D. How should different life expectancies be valued? BMJ 1998;316:1316. 81. Brouwer W, Van Hout B. Diminishing marginal utility of health effects. BMJ 1998;317:1155. 82. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054–60. 83. Thatcher N, Hopwood P, Anderson H. Improving quality of life in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: research experience with gemcitabine. Eur J Cancer 1997;33(Suppl 1):S8–13. 84. van Zandwijk N, Giaccone G. Treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 1996;8:120–5. 85. Spiro SG, Gower NH, Evans MT, Facchini FM, Rudd RM. Recruitment of patients with lung cancer into a randomised clinical trial: experience at two centres. Thorax 2000;55:463–5. 86. Earle CC, Venditti LN, Neumann PJ, Gelber RD, Weinstein MC, Potosky AL, et al. Who gets chemotherapy for metastatic lung cancer? Chest 2000;117:1239–46. 87. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, Wilson P, Gregory WM, Armes PJ, et al. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ 1990;300:1458–60. 88. Koch P, Johnson N, Van Schaik J, Andersen S, Blatter J, Bosanquet N, et al. Gemcitabine: clinical and economic impact in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs 1995; 6(Suppl 6):49–54. 89. Earle CC, Evans WK. A comparison of the costs of paclitaxel and best supportive care in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Prev Control 1997;1:282–8. 90. Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C, Rossi A, Barletta E, Barzelloni ML, et al. Single-agent gemcitabine as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase II trial. Anticancer Res 1999;19:4535–8.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/52130

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item