Economic burden of resected (stage IB-IIIA) non-small cell lung cancer in France, Germany and the United Kingdom: A retrospective observational study (LuCaBIS)

OBJECTIVES: New adjuvant treatments are being developed for patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Due to scarcity of real-world data available for treatment costs and resource utilization, health technology and cost-effectiveness assessments can be limited. We estimated the burden and cost-of-illness associated with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in France, Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC between August 2009 and July 2012. Patients (living or deceased) were enrolled at clinical sites by a systematic sampling method. Data were obtained from medical records and patient surveys. Direct, indirect and patient out-of-pocket expenses were estimated by multiplying resource use by country-specific unit costs. National annual costs were estimated based on disease prevalence data available from published sources. RESULTS: 39 centers provided data from 831 patients of whom patient surveys were evaluable in 306 patients. Median follow-up was 26 months. The mean total direct costs per patient during follow-up were: €19,057 (France), €14,185 (Germany), and €8377 (UK). The largest cost drivers were associated with therapies received (€12,375 France; €3694 UK), and hospitalization/emergency costs (€7706 Germany). Monthly direct costs per patient were the highest during the distant metastasis/terminal illness phase in France (€15,562) and Germany (€6047) and during the adjuvant treatment period in the UK (€2790). Estimated mean total indirect costs per patient were: €696 (France), €2476 (Germany), and €1414 (UK). Estimates for the annual national direct cost were €478.4 million (France), €574.6 million (Germany) and €325.8 million (UK). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study describing the burden of illness for patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. The economic burden was substantial in all three countries. Treatment of NSCLC is associated with large annual national costs, mainly incurred during disease progression

Adjuvant treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom based on the LuCaBIS burden of illness study

OBJECTIVES: To inform health-technology assessments of new adjuvant treatments, we describe treatment patterns in patients with complete resection of stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected via medical record abstraction. Patients were aged ≥18 years with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, diagnosed between 01 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. Median follow-up was 26 months. Adjuvant treatment patterns and clinical outcomes were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Among the 831 patients studied, 239 (29%) had stage IB disease, 179 (22%) had stage IIA disease, 165 (20%) had stage IIB disease, and 248 (30%) had stage IIIA disease. Adjuvant systemic therapy was received by 402 patients (48.4%), (France, 61.8%; Germany, 51.9%; UK, 33.4%). Use of adjuvant therapy increased with increasing stage of disease. Cisplatin/vinorelbine and carboplatin/vinorelbine were the most frequently prescribed adjuvant regimens. Median disease-free survival was 48.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.3-not estimable); the 25th percentile was 13.2 months (95% CI, 11.0-15.3). 204 patients (24%) died during the follow-up period. The median overall survival was not reached, the 25th percentile was 31.2 months (95% CI 26.8-36.0 months). 272 patients (33%) had disease recurrence during the follow-up period. For 86 of those patients, the first recurrence was local or regional with no distant metastasis and 14 had further progression to metastatic disease during the follow-up time. For the other 186 patients, the first recurrence involved distant metastases. A total of 200 patients had metastatic disease at any time during study follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half the patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in this observational study received adjuvant systemic therapy. A high rate of first recurrence with distant metastatic disease was observed, emphasising the need for more effective systemic adjuvant therapies in this population

Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant goserelin (Zoladex) and adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal women with breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Increased health care costs have made it incumbent on health-care facilities and physicians to demonstrate both clinical and cost efficacy when recommending treatments. Though studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant goserelin with radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer, few have compared the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant goserelin to adjuvant chemotherapy alone in premenopausal breast cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this retrospective study at one hospital, the records of 152 patients with stage Ia to IIIa ER + breast cancer who received goserelin or chemotherapy were reviewed. Survival analysis was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients were interviewed to evaluate their quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30, version 4.0), and to obtain the utility value by the standard gamble (SG) and visual scale (VS) methods. Total medical cost was assessed from the (National Health Insurance) NHI payer's perspective.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Survival at 11 years was significantly better in the groserelin group (<it>P </it>< 0.0012). The lifetime lost was lower in the goserelin group (42 months vs. 66 months). The quality adjusted survival (QAS) of patients who received goserelin was longer (122.5 ± 6.3 vs. 112.2 ± 6.7 months). Total expenses of goserelin were more than cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) or 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy regimes, but less than docetaxel, epirubicin (TE) or docetaxel, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide (TEC) regimes. The quality-adjusted life-year was higher in the goserelin group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Goserelin therapy results in better survival and higher utility-weighted life-years, and is more cost-effective than TC or TEC chemotherapy.</p

Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies

A conceptual model framework and an initial literature review are invaluable when considering what health state utility values (HSUVs) are required to populate health states in decision models. They are the recommended starting point early within a research and development programme, and before development of phase III trial protocols. While clinical trials can provide an opportunity to collect the required evidence, their appropriateness should be reviewed against the requirements of the model structure taking into account population characteristics, time horizon and frequency of clinical events. Alternative sources such as observational studies or registries may be more appropriate when evidence describing changes in HSUVs over time or rare clinical events is required. Phase IV clinical studies may provide the opportunity to collect additional longitudinal real-world evidence. Aspects to consider when designing the collection of the evidence include patient and investigator burden, whom to ask, the representativeness of the population, the exact definitions of health states within the economic model, the timing of data collection, sample size, and mode of administration. Missing data can be an issue, particularly in longitudinal studies, and it is important to determine whether the missing data will bias inferences from analyses. For example, respondents may fail to complete follow-up questionnaires because of a relapse or the severity of their condition. The decision on the preferred study type and the particular quality of life measure should be informed by any evidence currently available in the literature, the design of data collection, and the exact requirements of the model that will be used to support resource allocation decisions (e.g. reimbursement)

The Role Of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures In Health Technology Assessment

A condition-specific preference-based measure (CSPBM) is a measure of health related quality of life (HRQoL) that is specific to a certain condition or disease and that can be used to obtain the quality adjustment weight of the quality adjusted life year (QALY) for use in economic models. This article provides an overview of the role of CSPBMs, the development of CSPBMs, and presents a description of existing CSPBMs in the literature. The article also provides an overview of the psychometric properties of CSPBMs in comparison to generic preference-based measures (generic PBMs), and considers the advantages and disadvantages of CSPBMs in comparison to generic PBMs. CSPBMs typically include dimensions that are important for that condition but may not be important across all patient groups. There are a large number of CSPBMs across a wide range of conditions, and these vary from covering a wide range of dimensions to more symptomatic or uni-dimensional measures. Psychometric evidence is limited but suggests that CSPBMs offer an advantage in more accurate measurement of milder health states. The mean change and standard deviation can differ for CSPBMs and generic PBMs, and this may impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CSPBMs have a useful role in HTA where a generic PBM is not appropriate, sensitive or responsive. However due to issues of comparability across different patient groups and interventions, their usage in health technology assessment is often limited to conditions where it is inappropriate to use a generic PBM or sensitivity analyses