STUDY OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate the cost effectiveness and median overall survival (OS) achieved in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas treated with temozolomide in British Columbia, as compared to previous lomustine use in the same patient population based on updated outcomes data. Results were also compared to temozolomide literature reports. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was performed to identify patients who received single agent temozolomide or lomustine during successive, prespecified time periods. Data were collected on survival, duration of therapy, drug cost, labour and supplies, and successive or prior chemotherapy. RESULTS: Forty-one patients in the temozolomide group and 25 patients in the lomustine group were analysed. The median OS was 33.3 weeks (95% CI 28.4, 42.1 weeks) and 37.7 weeks (95% CI 25.0, 88.4 weeks) respectively (P = 0.783). Temozolomide patients received a mean of 5.1 cycles of drug treatment, with a mean cost per patient of 10746 dollars (CAD). In contrast, lomustine patients received a mean of 3.3 cycles of therapy, with a mean cost per patient of 129 dollars (CAD). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that temozolomide was generally not a cost-effective strategy and that lomustine was the dominant strategy. In the sensitivity analysis, in scenarios where median OS was prolonged with temozolomide as compared to lomustine, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each life year gained ranged from 32,247 dollars to 162,186 dollars. CONCLUSION: No difference in survival was observed between patients treated with single agent lomustine and temozolomide. Based on the higher cost and lack of additional clinical benefit of temozolomide, lomustine is a more cost-effective treatment strategy.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate the cost effectiveness and median overall survival (OS) achieved in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas treated with temozolomide in British Columbia, as compared to previous lomustine use in the same patient population based on updated outcomes data. Results were also compared to temozolomide literature reports. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was performed to identify patients who received single agent temozolomide or lomustine during successive, prespecified time periods. Data were collected on survival, duration of therapy, drug cost, labour and supplies, and successive or prior chemotherapy. RESULTS: Forty-one patients in the temozolomide group and 25 patients in the lomustine group were analysed. The median OS was 33.3 weeks (95% CI 28.4, 42.1 weeks) and 37.7 weeks (95% CI 25.0, 88.4 weeks) respectively (P = 0.783). Temozolomidepatients received a mean of 5.1 cycles of drug treatment, with a mean cost per patient of 10746 dollars (CAD). In contrast, lomustinepatients received a mean of 3.3 cycles of therapy, with a mean cost per patient of 129 dollars (CAD). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that temozolomide was generally not a cost-effective strategy and that lomustine was the dominant strategy. In the sensitivity analysis, in scenarios where median OS was prolonged with temozolomide as compared to lomustine, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each life year gained ranged from 32,247 dollars to 162,186 dollars. CONCLUSION: No difference in survival was observed between patients treated with single agent lomustine and temozolomide. Based on the higher cost and lack of additional clinical benefit of temozolomide, lomustine is a more cost-effective treatment strategy.
Authors: Jeffrey J Raizer; Karen A Fitzner; Daniel I Jacobs; Charles L Bennett; Dustin B Liebling; Thanh Ha Luu; Steven M Trifilio; Sean A Grimm; Matthew J Fisher; Meraaj S Haleem; Paul S Ray; Judith M McKoy; Rebecca DeBoer; Katrina-Marie E Tulas; Mohammed Deeb; June M McKoy Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 3.840