Elsevier

Lung Cancer

Volume 37, Issue 2, August 2002, Pages 219-225
Lung Cancer

Patterns, costs and cost-effectiveness of care in a trial of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5002(02)00042-9Get rights and content

Abstract

In a recently published randomised trial of chemotherapy versus palliative care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (the MIC2 trial), chemotherapy was shown to prolong survival without compromising quality of life. The study presented here examines patterns of care and their associated costs within a representative subgroup of patients from the MIC2 trial. The study consisted of 116 patients from the South Birmingham Health Authority area. The total health service cost for each patient from entry to trial to death or last follow-up was calculated by combining the resources used with their associated unit costs. The mean cost for patients with complete data on the chemotherapy arm was £6999 (standard deviation (S.D.) £4194) compared to £4076 (S.D. £3078) for those with complete data on the palliative care arm. Non-parametric bootstrapping gave a difference between treatment arms in mean cost of £2924 (95% CI £1234–£4323). With a difference in mean survival of 2.4 months, this translates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £14 620 per life year gained. Chemotherapy was found to be more costly than standard palliative care, mainly due to the increased number of hospital in-patient days.

Introduction

The recently published trials investigating the effect of mitomycin, ifosfamide and cisplatin chemotherapy (MIC) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) show that chemotherapy prolongs survival, without compromising quality of life [1]. In particular, the trial in advanced disease (the MIC2 trial) showed a statistically significant survival benefit (P=0.03) with an increased median survival on chemotherapy of almost 2 months. The meta-analysis of smaller trials also showed that cisplatin-based chemotherapy confers a small survival benefit, with the greatest effect in patients with advanced disease [2].

Given the unavoidable reality of resource constraints in all health care systems, purchasing decisions in cancer care are based not only on evidence describing the impact of treatment on survival and quality of life, but also on cost. There has been some research into the cost of treating lung cancer in the UK [3] but not within a randomised trial setting. The majority of studies addressing the cost of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC are Canadian-based, and these in general have adopted a decision-analytic approach [4], [5], although one influential Canadian study directly collected and reported data from patients within a randomised trial [6]. Intuitively, one would expect the costs of chemotherapy to be higher but this latter study suggested that chemotherapy use may be associated with lower costs than ‘best supportive care’. They showed that chemotherapy drug costs are a relatively small proportion of the overall costs of care in advanced lung cancer, and may be more than counterbalanced by the extra cost of palliation in patients not having chemotherapy.

Having established the effect of MIC chemotherapy on duration and quality of life in advanced NSCLC via the MIC2 trial, the study reported here was designed to provide the final necessary component of information, namely cost. The study was a retrospective examination aimed at identifying patterns of care and their associated costs in the UK, in a subgroup of patients within the two arms of the MIC2 trial, to allow an estimate of the cost differences attributable to chemotherapy.

The difference in cost can be compared to the survival benefit observed in all trial patients, allowing the estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy versus palliative care.

Section snippets

Patients

Details of the design of the MIC2 trial are given elsewhere [1]. In summary, ambulatory (WHO performance status 0, 1 or 2) patients, aged 75 or less, with inoperable extensive stage NSCLC were prospectively randomised to receive MIC chemotherapy plus standard palliative care (MIC+PC) versus standard palliative care alone (PC). The trial recruited 351 eligible patients between March 1988 and March 1996.

A detailed retrospective study of patterns and costs of care between entry to trial and death

Patients

The baseline characteristics of all trial patients are described in Table 2. The study presented here consists of a representative subset of 116 of these patients, 58 on each treatment arm. The study patients on each arm are reasonably well balanced with respect to these characteristics (Table 2).

Survival

Details of the survival times on the two arms of the trial are given elsewhere [1]. In summary, the hazard ratio of chemotherapy against palliative care was 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI):

Discussion

The MIC2 trial showed that MIC chemotherapy significantly prolongs survival without compromising quality of life. Ideally, a study of costs within the trial would have been carried out on all randomised patients, but limited resources meant that this was not a viable option and so a representative subset of patients was used. The choice of patients was based purely on geographical criteria and the treatment comparison should therefore be unbiased. Restricting the study to a single geographical

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the National Health Service Research & Development Programme for funding this study. We are grateful to Charlotte Woodroffe, Julia Mason, Christine Faul, Sue Whitmarsh, Mandy Smith, David Parry, Andreas Abrousalis and Gulnaz Begum for their input to the study and to Julie Barber for her advice on bootstrapping.

References (11)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (24)

  • Medico-economic aspects of pulmonology

    2009, Revue des Maladies Respiratoires Actualites
  • Patterns of Care for Lung Cancer in Radiation Oncology Departments of Turkey

    2008, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
    Citation Excerpt :

    LC has the highest incidence and mortality of all cancers in Turkey (2). A few pattern of care studies (PCS) have been performed in various countries (3–7) or in a single region of a country (8) that are important in understanding the current situation of care for LC and also in detecting deficiencies or problems. Although the pattern of LC incidence has been examined in a large study by the Turkish Thoracic Society (9), the variability of the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to LC has not been studied until now.

  • Stage IV NSCLC Economic analysis in lung cancers

    2008, Revue des Maladies Respiratoires
  • Comparative clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

    2008, Lung Cancer
    Citation Excerpt :

    These findings may be particularly useful for decision makers given differences in the reimbursement structure for oral vs. IV drugs, as they are often reimbursed by different payer silos, i.e. medical benefits vs. pharmacy or Medicare part B vs. part D [31,32]. A number of cost-effectiveness analyses have been performed in the advanced NSCLC setting, but most are in the first-line setting [33–44]. In the second-line setting, Holmes et al. compared docetaxel (75 mg/m2) to best supportive care from the national health system (UK) perspective and found it to be cost-effective at £13,863 per life year gained [15].

  • Economic Evaluation of Cancer Drugs: Using Clinical Trial and Real-World Data

    2019, Economic Evaluation of Cancer Drugs: Using Clinical Trial and Real-World Data
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text