Economic Analysis of NCIC CTG JBR.10: A Randomized Trial of Adjuvant Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Observation in Early Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer—A Report of the Working Group on Economic Analysis, and the Lung Disease Site Group, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (16) ◽  
pp. 2256-2261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond Ng ◽  
Baktiar Hasan ◽  
Nicole Mittmann ◽  
Marie Florescu ◽  
Frances A. Shepherd ◽  
...  

Purpose National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 study is among the landmark trials that have established third generation platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy as the standard of care after resection of stages IB-II NSCLC, improving absolute 5-year survival by 15% and median survival by 21 months. This cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy from the perspective of Canada's public health care system was undertaken based on the JBR.10 study population. Patients and Methods The primary outcome of the study was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed in dollars per life-year gained (LYG). Direct medical resource utilization data were collected retrospectively from trial data and medical records of patients enrolled in the JBR.10 study at the five largest accruing Canadian centers, from the time of random assignment until death or study closure (April 2004). Survival and available costs (2005 Canadian dollars [$CAD]) are presented both with and without discounting at 5% per year. Results Utilization data were collected from 172 Canadian patients (36% of the trial population), 85 randomly assigned to observation and 87 randomly assigned to chemotherapy. The mean costs of treatment per patient in the observation and adjuvant chemotherapy arms were $23,878 and $31,319, respectively, with an ICER of CAD$7,175/LYG discounted (95% CI, −$3,463 to $41,565), and $10,096/LYG undiscounted (95% CI, −$819 to $55,651). Conclusion Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin is a highly cost effective treatment that compares very favorably with other standard health care interventions.

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7155-7155
Author(s):  
R. Ng ◽  
N. Mittmann ◽  
M. Florescu ◽  
F. A. Shepherd ◽  
A. Salvarrey ◽  
...  

7155 Background: NCIC CTG JBR.10 is among the landmark trials to establish 3rd generation platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy as standard of care after complete resection of stages IB-II NSCLC, improving 5-year survival by 15% and median survival by 21 months (p 0.04). The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy from the perspective of Canada’s public health care system was undertaken in a retrospective analysis based on the JBR.10 study population. Methods: Direct medical resource utilization data, from prospective trial data of patients enrolled onto the BR.10 trial at the 5 largest accruing Canadian centres, were identified and collected retrospectively. Direct medical costs included treatment, hospitalization and procedures. Data were captured from the time of randomization until death or study closure (April, 2004). Non-medical direct and indirect costs were not included. Available costs are presented both with and without discounting at 5% per year. Costs (2005 $CAN) were obtained from provincial sources. Average costs per treatment arm (adjuvant chemotherapy vs. observation) were calculated. Basic demographic statistics were calculated. Results: Utilization data were collected from 172 patients (36% of the trial population), 83 randomized to observation and 89 to chemotherapy. Preliminary results are available for the non-drug related costs of direct medical care including hospitalization and procedures. The mean cost of treatment for patients in the observation arm is $15,323 (25–75% IQR $1,933-$17,831), and $18,701 (25–75% IQR $2,873-$18,781) for patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy arm (2005 $CAN). Conclusion: Non-drug related costs are only slightly higher in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in the NCIC BR.10 trial, despite substantially longer survival for this group of patients. These preliminary results will be updated and cost effectiveness data will be available in May 2006. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 762-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Stoykova ◽  
R. Dowie ◽  
H. C. Kitchener

During the last 10 years, the management of gynecological cancer has been undergoing a great deal of change. This is due to a drive to reduce ineffective treatment and associated morbidity while at the same time maximizing the benefits of currently available treatment. The foundation for this approach has been high-quality clinical trials which have been performed in increasing numbers. These trials can provide strong evidence that treatments are equivalent or that a new drug adds superiority to previous treatment.The access that women have to the most effective forms of treatment often depends on the availability of healthcare resources and their affordability within the healthcare system. Healthcare decision makers increasingly require not just clinical effectiveness of treatments but also cost-effectiveness to be demonstrated. While health economic methods have been applied to many forms of cancer treatment and screening, there have been very few rigorous economic studies performed in gynecological cancer.This article discusses how economic analysis can be incorporated into clinical trials and how it can provide the sort of value for money determination that payers of healthcare are now requiring. Economic analysis may add a little to the cost of trials, but in the end, it may increase access to treatment by convincing decision makers of cost-effectiveness.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18887-e18887
Author(s):  
Preethi John ◽  
Raveendhara R Bannuru ◽  
Joshua T. Cohen ◽  
Rachel J. Buchsbaum ◽  
John Kalil Erban

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Sutton ◽  
Steph Garfield-Birkbeck ◽  
Graham Martin ◽  
Rachel Meacock ◽  
Stephen Morris ◽  
...  

There are well-developed guidelines for economic evaluation of clearly defined clinical interventions, but no such guidelines for economic analysis of service interventions. Distinctive challenges for analysis of service interventions include diffuse effects, wider system impacts, and variability in implementation, costs and effects. Cost-effectiveness evidence is as important for service interventions as for clinical interventions. There is also an important role for wider forms of economic analysis to increase our general understanding of context, processes and behaviours in the care system. Methods exist to estimate the cost-effectiveness of service interventions before and after introduction, to measure patient and professional preferences, to reflect the value of resources used by service interventions, and to capture wider system effects, but these are not widely applied. Future priorities for economic analysis should be to produce cost-effectiveness evidence and to increase our understanding of how service interventions affect, and are affected by, the care system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document