OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of gemcitabine in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS:Gemcitabine was compared with best supportive care and gemcitabine/cisplatin was compared with three standard chemotherapies and four other novel chemotherapy combinations. Costs and effectiveness measures were based on resource and outcome data from previously reported clinical trials. All direct costs associated with NSCLC treatment were included and adjusted to year 2000 values. PERSPECTIVE: UK National Health Service. RESULTS:Gemcitabine plus best supportive care was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling5228 compared with best supportive care alone. In comparison with standard chemotherapies, gemcitabine/cisplatin was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling1751 versus etoposide/cisplatin and cost per 1-year survival gain of pound sterling5681 versus mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Incremental cost per tumour response was pound sterling2032 relative to etoposide/cisplatin, pound sterling5169 relative to mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin and pound sterling6240 relative to mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Compared with four novel (newer) combination chemotherapies gemcitabine/ cisplatin showed cost savings in each case, with the same or better outcome. Thus, gemcitabine/cisplatin showed improved cost effectiveness and dominance. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to variations to the values of key parameters. CONCLUSION:Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin was assessed to be a cost-effective or cost-saving therapy when compared with best supportive care, standard chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy combinations. Chemotherapy regimens containing gemcitabine therefore represent good value for money and efficient use of healthcare resources in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of gemcitabine in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS:Gemcitabine was compared with best supportive care and gemcitabine/cisplatin was compared with three standard chemotherapies and four other novel chemotherapy combinations. Costs and effectiveness measures were based on resource and outcome data from previously reported clinical trials. All direct costs associated with NSCLC treatment were included and adjusted to year 2000 values. PERSPECTIVE: UK National Health Service. RESULTS:Gemcitabine plus best supportive care was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling5228 compared with best supportive care alone. In comparison with standard chemotherapies, gemcitabine/cisplatin was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling1751 versus etoposide/cisplatin and cost per 1-year survival gain of pound sterling5681 versus mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Incremental cost per tumour response was pound sterling2032 relative to etoposide/cisplatin, pound sterling5169 relative to mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin and pound sterling6240 relative to mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Compared with four novel (newer) combination chemotherapies gemcitabine/ cisplatin showed cost savings in each case, with the same or better outcome. Thus, gemcitabine/cisplatin showed improved cost effectiveness and dominance. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to variations to the values of key parameters. CONCLUSION:Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin was assessed to be a cost-effective or cost-saving therapy when compared with best supportive care, standard chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy combinations. Chemotherapy regimens containing gemcitabine therefore represent good value for money and efficient use of healthcare resources in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.
Authors: W W ten Bokkel Huinink; B Bergman; A Chemaissani; W Dornoff; P Drings; P L Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; K Liippo; K Mattson; J von Pawel; S Ricci; C Sederholm; R A Stahel; G Wagenius; N V Walree; C Manegold Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: P Kosmidis; N Mylonakis; A Dimopoulos; N Pavlidis; G Fountzilas; E Samantas; K Dimitriadis; C Kalophonos; D Tsavdaridis; D Skarlos Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: P Lippe; R R Silva; L Giuliodori; M A Cancellieri; N Battelli; C Massacesi; R Berardi; R Bisonni; R Gesuita; R Cellerino Journal: Minerva Med Date: 2000 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.806
Authors: H Anderson; P Hopwood; R J Stephens; N Thatcher; B Cottier; M Nicholson; R Milroy; T S Maughan; S J Falk; M G Bond; P A Burt; C K Connolly; M B McIllmurray; J Carmichael Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mathilda L Bongers; Veerle M H Coupé; Elise P Jansma; Egbert F Smit; Carin A Uyl-de Groot Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Se Hoon Park; Seong Hwan Jeong; Sun Young Kyung; Young-Hee Lim; Chang Hyeok An; Sang Pyo Lee; Jeong Woong Park; Soo Mee Bang; Eun Kyung Cho; Dong Bok Shin; Jae Hoon Lee Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 3.064