These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The cost-effectiveness of four cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of stages III B and IV non-small cell lung cancer: an Italian perspective.
    Author: Palmer AJ, Brandt A.
    Journal: Monaldi Arch Chest Dis; 1996 Aug; 51(4):279-88. PubMed ID: 8909011.
    Abstract:
    The cost-effectiveness of four cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages III B and IV was retrospectively assessed specifically with respect to the situation in Italy and from the third party payer perspective. The chemotherapy regimens compared were gemcitabine+cisplatin (G + C), mitomycin+ifosfamide+cisplatin (MIP), etoposide+cisplatin (E + C), and vinorelbine+cisplatin (V + C). Efficacy and safety data for the regimens were calculated from studies selected from the international literature using formal inclusion and exclusion criteria. In total, one study with one G + C treatment arm (48 patients), one study with one MIP treatment arm (133 patients), three studies with one E + C treatment arm (total 325 patients), and two studies with one V + C treatment arm (total 327 patients) were included. Where efficacy and toxicity results for the same regimen were reported in more than one study, the values were combined using a random effects meta-analysis method. The mean tumour response rates were: 54% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 40-69%); 40% (95% CI 32-49%); 26% (95% CI 20-30%); and 35% (95% CI 24-48) for G + C, MIP, E + C and V + C, respectively. Costs were evaluated for World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 and 4 toxicities with high impact on medical costs using computer modelling techniques. The official prices of drugs and official reimbursement rates were used to calculate direct medical costs. Average cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the treatments. Marginal cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the use of MIP, E + C or V + C instead of G + C would result in additional costs of 7.7, 55.2 (p < 0.05), and 46.2 million lira, respectively, for every patient with a tumour response.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]