Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study - Centre François Baclesse Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue BMC Cancer Année : 2014

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study

Isabelle Monnet
  • Fonction : Auteur
Alain Vergnenegre
  • Fonction : Auteur
Christos Chouaïd

Résumé

Background: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. Methods: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. Conclusion: Gemcitabine-or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Domaines

Cancer Médicaments
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
cost.pdf (809.72 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Publication financée par une institution
Loading...

Dates et versions

hal-01310800 , version 1 (03-05-2016)

Licence

Paternité

Identifiants

Citer

Isabelle Borget, Maurice Pérol, David Pérol, Armelle Lavolé, Laurent Greillier, et al.. Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study. BMC Cancer, 2014, 14, pp.953. ⟨10.1186/1471-2407-14-953⟩. ⟨hal-01310800⟩
471 Consultations
204 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More