Andre Konski1,2, Mytheryi Bhargavan3, Jean Owen4, Ritsuko Komaki5, Corey J Langer6, Elizabeth Gore7, Rebecca Paulus4, Hak Choy8, Deborah-Watkins Bruner9, Walter J Curran10. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Senior Fellow Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania. 3. American College of Radiology, Reston VA. 4. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 6. Division of Medical Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Medical School, Philadelphia, PA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 9. School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 10. Wiship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta GA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cost can be a major issue in therapeutic decision-making, and in particular for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). METHODS: The specific aim of this analysis was to evaluate the costs and outcomes of patients treated on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 94-10, Medicare Part A and Part B costs from all for patients treated from 1991 to 1996 on RTOG 94-10, a phase III trial showing a survival benefit for concurrent chemoradiation (STD RT) over sequential (RT day 50) chemoradiation in LA-NSCLC with intermediate outcome for concurrent twice daily radiation and chemotherapy (HFX RT). 26-month expected costs for each arm of the trial in 1996 dollars were determined, with Kaplan Meier sampling average estimates of survival probabilities for each month and mean monthly costs. The analysis was performed from a payer's perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated comparing RT on day 50 and HFX RT to the STD RT. RESULTS: Of the 610 patients entered, Medicare cost data and clinical outcomes were available for 92 patients. In this subset, compared to STD RT, RT on day 50 proved less costly but resulted in reduced survival at 1 year. In addition, HFX RT cost slightly more than STD RT but was less effective in this cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with Medicare insurance and with significant toxicity burden, RT on day 50 is the least expensive but also least effective treatment in this subset of patients treated on RTOG 94-10.
BACKGROUND: Cost can be a major issue in therapeutic decision-making, and in particular for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). METHODS: The specific aim of this analysis was to evaluate the costs and outcomes of patients treated on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 94-10, Medicare Part A and Part B costs from all for patients treated from 1991 to 1996 on RTOG 94-10, a phase III trial showing a survival benefit for concurrent chemoradiation (STD RT) over sequential (RT day 50) chemoradiation in LA-NSCLC with intermediate outcome for concurrent twice daily radiation and chemotherapy (HFX RT). 26-month expected costs for each arm of the trial in 1996 dollars were determined, with Kaplan Meier sampling average estimates of survival probabilities for each month and mean monthly costs. The analysis was performed from a payer's perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated comparing RT on day 50 and HFX RT to the STD RT. RESULTS: Of the 610 patients entered, Medicare cost data and clinical outcomes were available for 92 patients. In this subset, compared to STD RT, RT on day 50 proved less costly but resulted in reduced survival at 1 year. In addition, HFX RT cost slightly more than STD RT but was less effective in this cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with Medicare insurance and with significant toxicity burden, RT on day 50 is the least expensive but also least effective treatment in this subset of patients treated on RTOG 94-10.
Entities:
Keywords:
Combination chemotherapy; Cost-effectiveness; Induction chemotherapy; Lung Cancer; Medicare dat
Authors: Walter J Curran; Rebecca Paulus; Corey J Langer; Ritsuko Komaki; Jin S Lee; Stephen Hauser; Benjamin Movsas; Todd Wasserman; Seth A Rosenthal; Elizabeth Gore; Mitchell Machtay; William Sause; James D Cox Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joan L Warren; Martin L Brown; Michael P Fay; Nicola Schussler; Arnold L Potosky; Gerald F Riley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544