Cost-minimization analysis of a phase III trial comparing concurrent versus sequential radiochemotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (GFPC-GLOT 95–01)

• Published in: Annals of oncology Vol. 17; no. 8; pp. 1269 - 1274
• Main Authors: Vergnenegre, A., Combescure, C., Fournel, P., Bayle, S., Gimenez, C., Souquet, P. J., Lena, H., Perol, M., Delhoume, J. Y.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01.08.2006; Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic agents; Biological and medical sciences; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - economics; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - radiotherapy; clinical trial; cost minimization analysis; Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Health Care Costs; Humans; lung cancer; Lung Neoplasms - economics; Lung Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Pneumology; radiochemotherapy; stage III NSCLC; Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum; Phase III trial; Human; Lung disease; Cost minimization; Respiratory disease; Lung cancer; Concurrent; Malignant tumor; non-small cell lung carcinoma; Chemoradiotherapy; Bronchopulmonary; radiochemotherapy; Sequential; Health economy; Bronchus disease; Clinical trial; Advanced stage; stage III NSCLC; cost minimization analysis; Cost analysis; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0923-7534; 1569-8041
• DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdl100

Background: We conducted an economic analysis of a phase III clinical trial comparing sequential radiochemotherapy (RT-CT) with concurrent RT-CT in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods: The trial was a randomized multicenter study comparing three cycles of chemotherapy (arm A) followed by radiotherapy against an RT-CT combination (two cycles of platinum etoposide) followed by two cycles of platinum-vinorelbine (arm B). The economic analysis adopted the payer's perspective and only included direct costs. Costs (€, 1996–2003) were recorded until the cut-off date. A cost minimization analysis and a sensitivity analysis were carried out. Results: Data from 173 patients were used in the economic study. Protocol costs tended to be higher in arm B, while relapse costs were significantly higher in arm A. The total number of hospital days was higher in arm B. The average total cost per patient was €16 074 in arm A and €15 245 in arm B (P = 0.15). The cost minimization analysis favored arm B. This advantage persisted in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Concurrent RT-CT was not the more costly strategy in this phase III trial, despite lengthier hospitalization for toxicity. Other studies of similar design are needed to confirm these results in future randomized trials.