Location of Repository

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

By Emma Loveman, Jeremy Jones, Debbie Hartwell, Alex Bird, Petra Harris, Karen Welch and Andrew Clegg

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC).<br/><br/>Data sources: Bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2009, including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PREMEDLINE In-Process &amp; Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional references and the manufacturer’s submission to NICE was also searched.<br/><br/>Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text of retrieved papers using a standard form. For the clinical effectiveness review, the studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which included adult participants with relapsed SCLC who responded to first-line treatment and for whom re-treatment with first-line therapy was inappropriate. The treatment was topotecan (oral or intravenous, i.v.) compared with one another, best supportive care (BSC) or other chemotherapy regimens. Outcomes included measures of response or disease progression and measures of survival. For the cost-effectiveness review studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported cost-effectiveness, cost–utility, cost–benefit or cost–consequence analyses. Data extraction and quality assessment of included studies was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. An independent economic model estimated the cost-effectiveness of topotecan (oral or i.v.) compared with BSC. The model used survival analysis methods to derive estimates of mean survival for patients treated with topotecan or receiving BSC alone. These were combined with quality of life (QoL) weights to derive estimates of mean quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients receiving BSC alone or topotecan plus BSC. Categories of costs included in the model included drug use, chemotherapy administration and on-treatment monitoring, management of adverse events, monitoring for disease progression and palliative care.<br/><br/>Results: A total of 434 references were identified of which five were included in the clinical effectiveness review. In these trials topotecan was compared with BSC, CAV [cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and vincristine] or amrubicin, or oral topotecan was compared with i.v. topotecan. No economic evaluations were identified. There were no statistically significant differences between groups when i.v. topotecan was compared with either CAV or oral topotecan for overall response rate (ORR). Response rate was significantly better in participants receiving i.v. amrubicin than in those receiving a low dose of i.v. topotecan (38% versus 13%, respectively, p = 0.039). There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of oral topotecan compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87, p = 0.01). Drug acquisition costs for four cycles of treatment were estimated at £2550 for oral topotecan and £5979 for i.v. topotecan. Non-drug treatment costs accounted for an additional £1097 for oral topotecan and £4289 for i.v. topotecan. Total costs for the modelled time horizon of 5 years were £4854 for BSC, £11,048 for oral topotecan and between £16,914 and £17,369 for i.v. topotecan (depending on assumptions regarding time progression). Life expectancy was 0.4735, 0.7984 and 0.7784 years for BSC, oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan respectively. Total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.2247 and 0.4077, for BSC and oral topotecan respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £33,851 per QALY gained. Total QALYs for i.v. topotecan were between 0.3875 and 0.4157 (depending on assumptions regarding time progression) resulting in an ICER between £74,074 and £65,507 per QALY gained.<br/><br/>Conclusions: Topotecan appeared to be better than BSC alone in terms of improved survival, and was as effective as CAV and less favourable than i.v. amrubicin in terms of response. Oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan were similar in efficacy. Topotecan offers additional benefit over BSC, but at increased cost. ICERs for i.v. topotecan, compared with BSC, were high and suggest that it is unlikely to be a cost-effective option. The ICER for oral topotecan is at the upper extreme of the range conventionally regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective. Further research into the QoL of patients with relapsed SCLC could identify the impacts of disease progression and treatment response.<br/

Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.soton.ac.uk:153029
Provided by: e-Prints Soton
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta1... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment 2010; Vol. 14: No. 19 © 2010 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. All rights reserved.
    2. 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment 2010; Vol. 14: No. 19 © 2010 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. All rights reserved. 185No. 35 Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment
    3. (2010). a Lesions that can only be measured unidimensionally are considered to be measurable (e.g. mediastinal adenopathy, malignant hepatomegaly).DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment
    4. A review by Fitzpatrick R,
    5. By Clar C, Cummins E, McIntyre L, Thomas S, Lamb J, Bain L, et al. doi
    6. By Griffiths CEM, Clark CM, Chalmers RJG, Li Wan
    7. By Potter doi
    8. By Sanderson D, Wright D, Acton C, Duree D. Volume 6, 2002 No. 1 A study of the methods
    9. By Sharples L, Buxton M, Caine N, Cafferty F, Demiris N, Dyer M, et doi
    10. By Wallace P, Barber J, Clayton W, Currell R, Fleming K, Garner P, et al. Volume 9, 2005 No. 1
    11. By Wang D, Cummins C, Bayliss S, Sandercock J, Burls A. Volume 13, 2009 No. 1 Deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood doi
    12. C, Mason G, et al. Volume 11, 2007 No. 1 Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a
    13. Can you indicate the quantity of saline required to achieve this concentration for a patient requiring
    14. Costs derived from NHS Reference Costs were sampled using estimated ‘SEs’. These assumed that a variation of plus or minus 25%
    15. (2009). Department of Health. doi
    16. DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment
    17. DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment 2010;
    18. DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment 2010; Vol. 14: No.
    19. DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment 2010; Vol. 14: No. 19 ©
    20. DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment 2010; Vol. 14: No. 19 © 2010 Queen’s Printer and Controller of
    21. DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 Health Technology Assessment 2010; Vol. 14: No. 19 © 2010 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. All rights reserved.
    22. et al. Volume 8, 2004 No. 1 What is the best imaging
    23. (2009). Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; doi
    24. G, Bhakta P, Lovett CA, Paisley S, Olsen R, Turner D, et al. Volume 7, 2003 No. 1 How important are comprehensive
    25. G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, Cairns JA, Grant AM, McKee L. Volume 2,
    26. Health Technology Assessment reports published to date 180Volume 4, 2000 No. 1 The
    27. L, et al.
    28. M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J. Volume 12, 2008 No. 1 A doi
    29. (2009). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. doi
    30. Phase II comparator study of oral versus intravenous topotecan in patients with chemosensitive small-cell lung cancer.
    31. (2004). Phase II trial of docetaxel and topotecan in recurrent and extensive small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer
    32. Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer. doi
    33. Phase III trial comparing supportive care alone with supportive care with oral topotecan in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer. doi
    34. Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. All rights reserved. 191No. 49 A systematic review and economic model of the clinical
    35. Stewart-Brown S, Sandercock J, et al. Volume 10, 2006 No. 1 The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease. By Loveman E, Green C, Kirby J, Takeda A, Picot J, Payne E, et al. doi
    36. TABLE 77 Estimating median TTP using the regression model Median TTP (weeks) Mean TTP (weeks)
    37. To retain compatibility with the methods of estimating the OS functions, the survival function for disease progression was estimated from linear transformations of the Kaplan–Meier estimate
    38. (2000). Topotecan (T) as second-line therapy following ifosfamidecarboplatin-etoposide (ICE) and maintenance for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Lung Cancer doi
    39. (2006). Topotecan and paclitaxel in previously treated patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer: phase II trial of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. J Thoracic Oncol 2006;1:211–17. Did not include the right intervention Eckardt
    40. (1999). Topotecan versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine for the treatment of recurrent small-cell lung cancer.
    41. TTP in the RCT reported by von Pawel
    42. Vol. 14: No. 19 © 2010 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. All rights reserved. 181No. 31 A randomised controlled
    43. (2004). Weekly bolus topotecan as secondary therapy in extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial.
    44. Weibull survival function: Goodness of fit Source df MS Number

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.