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


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Petra Harris
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Topotecan is a relatively new drug for use as a second-line treatment in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We performed a systematic review and economic evaluation of topotecan, and consider it here in relation to the NICE end of life criteria. Seventeen bibliographic databases (including Cochrane library, Medline and Embase) were searched from 1990 to February 2009, and experts and manufacturers were consulted, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which were selected according to prospectively defined criteria. An economic evaluation was undertaken to assess cost effectiveness compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK. Five RCTs were included. The clinical evidence indicates a statistically significant benefit of oral topotecan plus BSC compared to BSC alone for overall survival. Intravenous topotecan was similar in efficacy to both oral topotecan and CAV (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine). In the survival model, oral topotecan plus BSC was associated with an average gain in life expectancy of approximately 4 months, resulting in a gain of 0.183 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). At an incremental cost of approximately £6200 the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is £33,851 per QALY gained. Compared with BSC alone, oral topotecan for patients with relapsed SCLC was associated with improved health outcomes but at increased cost. The ICER is at the upper extreme of the range conventionally regarded as cost effective from an NHS decision making perspective. However, this treatment may fall under supplementary guidance for life extending, end of life treatments.
    Full-text · Article · May 2011 · Cancer Treatment Reviews
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite decades of intensive biological and clinical research, there still remains a substantial lack of consensus regarding the appropriate therapeutic management of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Many randomized studies have been performed to identify the most effective treatment strategy, the best agents or treatment duration, the most appropriate dose and timing of radiotherapy and thus providing more reliable evidence for clinical practice. Unfortunately most of these trials reported contrasting results, and in several meta-analyses have been performed, with the intent to clarify the strategic approach for each issue. This review focuses on the contribution of the main meta-analyses in defining the standard approaches in the treatment of SCLC, discussing their real value and influence on every-day decision making. According to the results of available meta-analyses, platinum-based chemotherapy should be considered the standard of care for the treatment of SCLC. Cisplatin and carboplatin have shown similar efficacy, and the choice of the platinum compound for the treatment of patients with extensive stage SCLC should consider the expected toxicity profile, organ function, performance status, and comorbidities. Thoracic radiotherapy, administered early and in combination with chemotherapy, improves long-term results, although with higher toxicity. Prophylactic cranial irradiation in patients with limited disease obtaining response after induction treatment is a standard of care. Maintenance treatment, intensified chemotherapy and use of growth factors have not proven significant efficacy. Topotecan is effective as second-line treatment, although evidence on clinical benefit for patients relapsed after first-line is limited.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2012 · Cancer Treatment Reviews
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2013
Show more