K Zhou1,2, F Wen1,2, P Zhang1,2, J Zhou1,2, H Zheng3, L Sun4,5, Q Li6,7. 1. State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. West China Bio-Medical Big Data Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 4. West China Bio-Medical Big Data Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 331221241@qq.com. 5. Department of Medical Insurance Office, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 331221241@qq.com. 6. State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. fbqiu9@163.com. 7. West China Bio-Medical Big Data Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. fbqiu9@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since combined strategy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan has shown the superiority to topotecan alone as second-line chemotherapy in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer, this study aimed to compare these two treatments based on JCOG0605 trail from Chinese cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: Basic medical information was derived from a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial (JCOG0605). A Markov model including three health states: progression-free state, progressive disease (PD), and death, was developed to simulate the process of sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Cost was calculated from the perspective of Chinese society. Sensitivity analyses were applied to explore the impact of essential variables. RESULTS: Treatment with combination chemotherapy was estimated to increase costs by $6947.32 compared with topotecan alone, with a gain of 0.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Thus, the incremental cost-effective ratio was $26720.46/QALY for combination treatment versus monotherapy, which was beyond the threshold of 3 × the per capita GDP of China, $24423.00. The costs of PD state were the most influential factors to the model. CONCLUSION: The combination chemotherapy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan was not a cost-effectiveness choice for patients with sensitive relapsed SCLC in China from the cost-effectiveness perspective.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Since combined strategy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan has shown the superiority to topotecan alone as second-line chemotherapy in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer, this study aimed to compare these two treatments based on JCOG0605 trail from Chinese cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: Basic medical information was derived from a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial (JCOG0605). A Markov model including three health states: progression-free state, progressive disease (PD), and death, was developed to simulate the process of sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Cost was calculated from the perspective of Chinese society. Sensitivity analyses were applied to explore the impact of essential variables. RESULTS: Treatment with combination chemotherapy was estimated to increase costs by $6947.32 compared with topotecan alone, with a gain of 0.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Thus, the incremental cost-effective ratio was $26720.46/QALY for combination treatment versus monotherapy, which was beyond the threshold of 3 × the per capita GDP of China, $24423.00. The costs of PD state were the most influential factors to the model. CONCLUSION: The combination chemotherapy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan was not a cost-effectiveness choice for patients with sensitive relapsed SCLC in China from the cost-effectiveness perspective.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cisplatin plus etoposide plus irinotecan; Cost-effectiveness; Second-line chemotherapy; Sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer; Topotecan
Authors: Mary E R O'Brien; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; Hristo Tsekov; Yaroslav Shparyk; Branka Cuceviá; Gabor Juhasz; Nicholas Thatcher; Graham A Ross; Graham C Dane; Theresa Crofts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Masuda; M Fukuoka; Y Kusunoki; K Matsui; N Takifuji; S Kudoh; S Negoro; M Nishioka; K Nakagawa; M Takada Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1992-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Joseph McDonnell; Guul Ten Velde; David Radice; Harry J M Groen Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.423