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

Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 03/2010; 14(19):1-204. DOI: 10.3310/hta14190
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC).
Bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2009, including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PREMEDLINE In-Process & 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.
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.
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 pounds for oral topotecan and 5979 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Non-drug treatment costs accounted for an additional 1097 pounds for oral topotecan and 4289 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Total costs for the modelled time horizon of 5 years were 4854 pounds for BSC, 11,048 pounds for oral topotecan and between 16,914 pounds and 17,369 pounds 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 pounds 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 pounds and 65,507 pounds per QALY gained.
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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The addition of thoracic radiotherapy improves the outcome of limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). The cost-effectiveness has never been reported. We aimed to estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy (C-TRT) vs chemotherapy alone (C/T) for LS-SCLC patients from the payer's perspective (Taiwan National Health Insurance).Methods We identified LS-SCLC patients diagnosed within 2007-2009 through a comprehensive population-based database containing cancer registry, death registry, and reimbursement data. The duration of interest was one year within diagnosis. We included potential confounding covariables though literature searching and our own experiences and used propensity score (PS) to construct a 1:1 population for adjustment. We used net benefit (NB) approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at various willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels. Sensitivity analysis regarding potential unmeasured confounder(s) was performed.ResultsOur study population constituted 74 patients. The mean cost (2013 USD) and survival (year) was higher for C-TRT (42437 vs 28357 for cost; 0.94 vs 0.88 for survival). At the common WTP level (50,000 USD/life-year), T-CRT was not cost effective (incremental NB -11,082) and the probability for T-CRT to be cost effective (i.e., positive net benefit) was 0.005. The result was moderate sensitive to potential unmeasured confounder(s) in sensitivity analysis.Conclusions We provide the first evidence that when compared to C/T, C-TRT is effective in improving survival but is not cost-effective in the short-term at common WTP level from payer's perspective. This information would be considered for clinicians when discussing with their LS-SCLC patients regarding thoracic radiotherapy.
    04/2014; 5(6). DOI:10.1111/1759-7714.12125
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer causes one in four of all deaths in the UK. Advances in biologic and pharmaceutical therapies over recent years have increased achievable survival gain in most life-limiting cancers, ranging from modest incremental improvements to step changes in life expectancy. The realised and anticipated impact of treatment advances on survival is of wide-ranging interest, from informing decisions about healthcare to understanding influences on mortality trends. This paper presents an overview of evidence for survival extension from a range of therapies that have become available in recent years for the treatment of lung, colorectal and breast cancer. The evidence considered includes short-term empirical evidence from clinical trials as well as longer-term estimates from models extrapolating over a lifetime horizon. The core data source is the evidence base supporting guidance published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK. This evidence has already been subject to appraisal by NICE; the aim of this paper is to collate the existing estimates submitted to NICE in order to appreciate the wide range in survival extension resulting from systematically identified cancer treatments.
    07/2013; 18(02). DOI:10.1017/S1357321713000184
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The acquisition costs of biologic drugs are often considered to be relatively high compared with those of nonbiologics. However, the total costs of delivering these drugs also depend on the cost of administration. Ignoring drug administration costs may distort resource allocation decisions because these affect cost effectiveness. The objectives of this systematic review were to develop a framework of drug administration costs that considers both the costs of physical administration and the associated proximal costs; and, as a case example, to use this framework to evaluate administration costs for biologics within the UK National Health Service (NHS). We reviewed literature that reported estimates of administration costs for biologics within the UK NHS to identify how these costs were quantified and to examine how differences in dosage forms and regimens influenced administration costs. The literature reviewed were identified by searching the Centre for Review and Dissemination Databases (DARE, NHS EED and HTA); EMBASE (The Excerpta Medica Database); MEDLINE (using the OVID interface); Econlit (EBSCO); Tufts Medical Center Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry; and Google Scholar. We identified 4,344 potentially relevant studies, of which 43 studies were selected for this systematic review. We extracted estimates of the administration costs of biologics from these studies. We found evidence of variation in the way that administration costs were measured, and that this affected the magnitude of costs reported, which could then influence cost effectiveness. Our findings suggested that manufacturers of biologic medicines should pay attention to formulation issues and their impact on administration costs, because these affect the total costs of healthcare delivery and cost effectiveness.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 07/2013; DOI:10.1007/s40258-013-0045-x

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014