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

The experience of providing hospice care concurrent with cancer treatment in the VA

PURPOSE

Veterans with advanced cancer can receive hospice care concurrently with treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy. However, variations exist in concurrent care use across Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs), and overall, concurrent care use is relatively rare. In this qualitative study, we aimed to identify, describe, and explain factors that influence the provision of concurrent cancer care (defined as chemotherapy or radiation treatments provided with hospice) for veterans with terminal cancer.

METHODS

From August 2015 to April 2016, we conducted six site visits and interviewed 76 clinicians and staff at six VA sites and their contracted community hospices, including community hospices (n = 16); VA oncology (n = 25); VA palliative care (n = 17); and VA inpatient hospice and palliative care units (n = 18).

RESULTS

Thematic qualitative content analysis found three themes that influenced the provision of concurrent care: (1) clinicians and staff at community hospices and at VAs viewed concurrent care as a viable care option, as it preserved hope and relationships while patient goals are clarified during transitions to hospice; and (2) the presence of dedicated liaisons facilitated care coordination and education about concurrent care; however, (3) clinicians and staff concerns about Medicare guideline compliance hindered use of concurrent care.

CONCLUSIONS

While concurrent care is used by a small number of veterans with advanced cancer, VA staff valued having the option available and as a bridge to hospice. Hospice staff felt concurrent care improved care coordination with VAMCs, but use may be tempered due to concerns related to Medicare compliance.

The use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years in cost-effectiveness analyses in palliative care: Mapping the debate through an integrative review

BACKGROUND

In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care.

AIM

To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year's value for palliative care.

DESIGN

The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

FINDINGS

Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied.

CONCLUSION

The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to-in addition to the EQ-5D- make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year.

Integrated Palliative Care and Oncologic Care in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Palliative care integrated into standard medical oncologic care will transform the way we approach and practice oncologic care. Integration of appropriate components of palliative care into oncologic treatment using a pathway-based approach will be described in this review. Care pathways build on disease status (early, locally advanced, advanced) as well as patient and family needs. This allows for an individualized approach to care and is the best means for proactive screening, assessment, and intervention, to ensure that all palliative care needs are met throughout the continuum of care. Components of palliative care that will be discussed include assessment of physical symptoms, psychosocial distress, and spiritual distress. Specific components of these should be integrated based on disease trajectory, as well as clinical assessment. Palliative care should also include family and caregiver education, training, and support, from diagnosis through survivorship and end of life. Effective integration of palliative care interventions have the potential to impact quality of life and longevity for patients, as well as improve caregiver outcomes.

Economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to review the economics of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We systematically analysed the cost effectiveness of treatments for the different stages of NSCLC, with particular emphasis on more recently approved agents. Numerous economic analyses in NSCLC have been conducted, with a variety of methods and in a number of countries. In patients with localized disease, adjuvant chemotherapy appears to have greater cost effectiveness than observation; however, there are few published data. In locally advanced disease, combined modalities (chemotherapy, surgery and/or radiotherapy) are probably cost effective, but high-quality economic analyses are lacking. In advanced NSCLC, third-generation chemotherapies used in the first-line setting can be administered with acceptable incremental cost effectiveness. In the second-line setting, new agents (docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib) have acceptable cost effectiveness. The lack of cost-utility analyses for elderly patients and patients with a poor prognosis rules out firm conclusions. This review suggests that most therapies for NSCLC are cost effective when the patient has a good performance status, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under USD 50,000 per life-year gained in the majority of cases.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) creates a large economic and disease burden worldwide. In an era of evidence-based medicine and increasing cost pressures, it is important to understand the relative clinical and economic impact of the many drug treatment strategies available for NSCLC. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the primary treatment of NSCLC published over the past decade (1 June 1997 to 1 June 2007) was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Harvard Review of Economic Analyses, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health databases. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of these studies, 58% were cost-effectiveness studies, 37% were cost-minimization studies and 5% were cost-utility studies. Most were from the EU (63%), were from the payer perspective (89%), were in advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC (84%) and were funded by drug manufacturers (68%). Drug treatments generally were found to be cost effective compared with best supportive care. In addition, cisplatin alone or in combination appeared to provide better value than carboplatin alone or in combination. We did not identify any studies of recently approved therapeutics (e.g. erlotinib or bevacizumab). The quality of studies varied but the majority did not meet recommended guidelines for economic evaluations, with only 43% using direct comparisons, 5% of studies being cost-utility studies and 26% using either statistical analysis of patient-level data or probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there are a multitude of studies examining drug treatment for NSCLC; however, few of these utilized methodological approaches consistent with recommended guidelines. Despite these limitations, it appears that drug therapy compared with no treatment provides reasonable value for money, but carrying out more detailed comparisons of various agents is challenging. Given the absence of studies on newer therapeutics and the lack of cost-utility studies, additional studies are warranted.

Patterns of care for lung cancer in radiation oncology departments of Turkey

PURPOSE

To determine the patterns of care for lung cancer in Turkish radiation oncology centers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Questionnaire forms from 21 of 24 (87.5%) centers that responded were evaluated.

RESULTS

The most frequent histology was non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (81%). The most common postoperative radiotherapy (RT) indications were close/(+) surgical margins (95%) and presence of pN2 disease (91%). The most common indications for postoperative chemotherapy (CHT) were ">/= IB" disease (19%) and the presence of pN2 disease (19%). In Stage IIIA potentially resectable NSCLC, the most frequent treatment approach was neoadjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CHRT) (57%). In Stage IIIA unresectable and Stage IIIB disease, the most frequent approach was definitive concomitant CHRT (91%). In limited SCLC, the most common treatment approach was concomitant CHRT with cisplatin+etoposide for cycles 1-3, completion of CHT to cycles 4-6, and finally prophylactic cranial irradiation in patients with complete response (71%). Six cycles of cisplatin + etoposide CHT and palliative thoracic RT, when required, was the most commonly used treatment (81%) in extensive SCLC. Sixty-two percent of centers did not have endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB) facilities.

CONCLUSION

There is great variation in diagnostic testing, treatment strategies, indications for postoperative RT and CHT, RT features, and EBB availability for LC cases. To establish standards, national guidelines should be prepared using a multidisciplinary approach.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of an intervention in a clinical trial when partial cost information is available: a Bayesian approach

There is an increasing need to establish whether health-care interventions are cost effective as well as clinically effective. It is becoming increasingly common for cost studies to be incorporated into clinical trials, either on all patients or more usually on a subset of patients. Establishing the total cost per patient is complex, as it requires information on resource use, which may come from a variety of different sources. This complexity may lead to considerable missing data, and can result in some patients only having partial cost information. In this paper we consider a clinical trial consisting of 351 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer comparing chemotherapy with standard palliative care. A subset of 115 patients was selected for the cost sub-study. Total cost was split into four components, for which resource use was collected. Complete resource data were available on 82 patients. For the remaining patients at least one of the cost components was missing. The objective of this paper is to develop a Bayesian approach which simultaneously models both the clinical effectiveness data and the cost data, by modelling the individual components. This also provides estimates of the cost-effectiveness in terms of the Incremental Net Monetary Benefit (INMB) and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves (CEAC). We compare a number of different models of increasing complexity. The models estimate the interrelationships between the four cost components and survival, and thus enable a predictive distribution for each missing cost item to be obtained.

Cost-effectiveness in clinical trials: using multiple imputation to deal with incomplete cost data

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness has become an important outcome in many clinical trials and has resulted in the collection of resource use data and the calculation of costs for individual patients. A specific example is a Cancer Research UK phase III trial comparing chemotherapy (CT) against standard palliative care in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Resource usage from trial entry until death were collected and costs obtained on a subset of 115 trial patients. For some patients, however, the unavailability of medical notes resulted in some cost components, and hence total cost, being missing. The 82 patients with complete data were not representative of all trial patients in terms of effectiveness and thus it was necessary to address the missing data problem.

METHODS

Multiple imputation (MI) was used to impute values for the unobserved individual cost components, allowing total cost to be calculated and cost-effectiveness carried out for all patients in the cost sub-study. The results are compared with those from a complete case analysis.

RESULTS

After MI, the results indicated that CT had a high probability of being cost-effective for a societal willingness to pay over 20,000 Pounds per life-year gained. This was in stark contrast with the complete case analysis, which suggested that CT was not a cost-effective use of resources at any reasonable level of willingness to pay for a life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Our findings are based on a relatively small retrospective study with all events observed.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, cost-effectiveness analysis of the complete cases only may give biased results, and therefore, in situations where there are missing costs, MI is recommended.

Palliative chemotherapy beyond three courses conveys no survival or consistent quality-of-life benefits in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

This randomised multicentre trial was conducted to establish the optimal duration of palliative chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We compared a policy of three vs six courses of new-generation platinum-based combination chemotherapy with regard to effects on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and WHO performance status (PS) 0–2 were randomised to receive three (C3) or six (C6) courses of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 4, Chatelut's formula, equivalent to Calvert's AUC 5) on day 1 and vinorelbine 25 mg m⁻² on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle. Key end points were QoL at 18 weeks, measured with EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and QLQ-LC13, and overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and need of palliative radiotherapy. Two hundred and ninety-seven patients were randomised (C3 150, C6 147). Their median age was 65 years, 30% had PS 2 and 76% stage IV disease. Seventy-eight and 54% of C3 and C6 patients, respectively, completed all scheduled chemotherapy courses. Compliance with QoL questionnaires was 88%. There were no significant group differences in global QoL, pain or fatigue up to 26 weeks. The dyspnoea palliation rate was lower in the C3 arm at 18 and 26 weeks (P<0.05), but this finding was inconsistent across different methods of analysis. Median survival in the C3 group was 28 vs 32 weeks in the C6 group (P=0.75, HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82–1.31). One- and 2-year survival rates were 25 and 9% vs 25 and 5% in the C3 and C6 arm, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 16 and 21 weeks in the C3 and C6 groups, respectively (P=0.21, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68–1.08). In conclusion, palliative chemotherapy with carboplatin and vinorelbine beyond three courses conveys no survival or consistent QoL benefits in advanced NSCLC.

Pharmacoeconomics of Systemic Therapies for Lung Cancer

The purpose of this article is to review the economics of systemic therapies for the treatment of lung cancer. Lung cancer treatment is moderately expensive. The overall cost to society is significant given its high incidence. Most analyses in patients with small cell lung cancer focus on supportive care measures. The economics of chemotherapy in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer, as assessed in one study, shows alternating chemotherapy to be cost effective. Numerous economic analyses of chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been completed using varying methodologies in a number of countries. In patients with advanced NSCLC, third generation chemotherapy in the first-line setting can be administered within reasonable incremental cost effectiveness. Single-agent docetaxel chemotherapy in the second-line setting has also been shown to fall within a reasonable cost-effective range. Based on this review, systemic therapies for lung cancer are, for the most part, cost effective. Information on the cost-utility of systemic therapies is more limited. In a population of cancer patients with poor prognosis, the inclusion of quality indicators in the calculation of costs (i.e. cost-utility analyses) will be of great importance to refine our understanding of costs and benefits using a more global approach. Future economic analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy and novel targeted therapies will be of great interest.

Estimation of the additional costs of chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

A large multicentre randomised trial, the Big Lung Trial, which in part compared supportive care with or without cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, provided an opportunity to evaluate the impact on the UK National Health Service of the costs incurred with the use of chemotherapy.

METHODS

This costing study was based on the retrospective collection of resource use data from hospital records. Case notes from 194 patients (98 chemotherapy + supportive care (C), 96 supportive care alone (NoC)) were inspected in eight centres recruiting the largest numbers of patients into the Big Lung Trial. Quantities were multiplied by fixed unit costs to calculate a total cost for each patient. The main outcome measure was the total cost incurred by the use of secondary care resources (including investigations, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical procedures, inpatient days, outpatient attendances, and hospice inpatient care) in the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients randomised to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy had an average of 3.4 more inpatient bed days than the mean of 11.9 days for patients randomised to supportive care alone, and more outpatient attendances. NoC patients were more likely to have received palliative radiotherapy. The mean total cost for C patients was 5355 sterling pound compared with 3595 sterling pound for the NoC group, difference 760 sterling pound (95% CI 781 sterling pound to 2742 sterling pound ). When split, the cost in the C group associated with the administration of chemotherapy was 1233 sterling pound and non-chemotherapy costs were 4122 sterling pound .

CONCLUSION

The additional cost of chemotherapy was not offset by a reduction in subsequent costs (as the non-chemotherapy costs were similar), so the survival benefit of about 10 weeks observed in the C group was achieved with the cost of chemotherapy administration.

Palliative chemotherapy: Historical perspective, applications, and controversies

Despite advances in cancer detection and treatment, cancer continues to be a major public health burden in the United States, and patients with advanced or refractory cancers carry much of this burden. The primary goal of cancer treatment is cure. However, most patients with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent disease do not benefit from this intent. Recent research studies have documented the role of chemotherapy in providing symptom control, preventing complications, prolonging life, and improving quality of life (QOL) in patients with incurable cancers. Although chemotherapy under these conditions is palliative, patients receiving chemotherapy or participating in research trials are excluded from receiving much needed palliative services, such as Hospice, based on current definitions, limitations, and models of palliative care. Application of palliative services on a continuum from the time of diagnosis through the end of life (EOL) has been recognized as beneficial in the treatment of patients with terminal diseases and has been addressed through trials assessing mixed management models, providing palliative and therapeutic options.

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life

BACKGROUND

In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364).

RESULTS

65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.

Management and costs of treating lung cancer patients in a university hospital

BACKGROUND

New diagnostic tools and emerging medications have significantly changed the existing medical treatment options for lung cancer over the last 5 years. However, the increase in healthcare costs in all developed societies has put the more economical treatments on centre stage.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the patterns and costs of lung cancer management at a Swiss University hospital at which there is a focus on interdisciplinary treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients encountered during 1998 at the University Hospital of Zurich (USZ) with any diagnosis of lung cancer were selected for this retrospective study. Medical and sociodemographic data were collected by medical chart review for a period beginning with the first contact and ending with the last follow-up examination up to 30 months afterwards. Costs were calculated by assessing all resources used by each patient, multiplied by a uniform average cost factor. Results are in euros at 1999 prices.

RESULTS

The sample included 118 patients (72% male) with a mean age of 64.2 years (SD 9.8, range 34-85 years) and a mean smoking history of 45 pack-years (SD 31.8, range 0-13 pack-years). Eighty-nine percent of all patients showed histology of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whereas 11% showed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Of the NSCLC patients, 27% were classified as stage I, 14% as stage II, 19% as stage IIIA, 11% as stage IIIB and 26% as stage IV disease. The overall survival rate after 1 year was 55% and after 2 years was 29%. Gender and health insurance status were not associated with overall survival. The median length of hospitalisation during the first year of treatment was 14 days (range 0-112 days). For the entire patient sample, the mean cost per patient was 19,408 euros (median 14,691 euros, range 1821-80,020 euros), 71% of which was due to the hospitalisation costs. The mean cost per NSCLC patient was 19,212 euros (median 14,511 euros, range 1821-80,020 euros) and for SCLC patients it was 20,992 euros (median 15,367 euros, range 5282-51,840 euros).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study attempting to estimate the hospital cost of treatment for lung cancer patients in Switzerland and central Europe. The major part of the total cost was due to hospitalisation costs. Patients with advanced stages of lung cancer show the highest cost, mainly due to the costs of chemotherapy. We found that the distribution of total cost is asymmetric: a small number of patients with an excessively long hospital stay cause very high costs.