title: Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Best supportive care has long been considered to be the standard therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is now evidence from randomized trials that a number of chemotherapy regimens can palliate cancer-related symptoms and modestly improve survival. We show how cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to make choices between different (ambulatory) chemotherapy regimens.
  
  
  METHODS
  Clinical algorithms describing the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of metastatic NSCLC were incorporated into Statistics Canada's Population Health Model. Using consistent methodology, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of several chemotherapeutic interventions: a combination of vindesine (VDS) plus cisplatin, etoposide (VP-16) plus cisplatin, vinblastine (VLB) plus cisplatin, vinorelbine (Navelbine; NVB) plus cisplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol) plus cisplatin, and gemcitabine (GEM) and NVB alone. We calculated the total chemotherapy costs in 1995 Canadian dollars, the cost per case, the average life-years saved, and the cost per life-year saved. Using the Population Health Model, we then constructed an advanced decision framework that rank-ordered the various treatment regimens so as to optimize benefit below various cost-effectiveness thresholds.
  
  
  RESULTS
  One regimen (VLB plus cisplatin) appears to result in better survival and lower health care expenditures than best supportive care. By use of cost-effectiveness thresholds of $25,000 and $50,000 per life-year gained, NVB plus cisplatin is the preferred regimen. When quality of life is considered, however, GEM is preferred to NVB plus cisplatin at a threshold value of $50,000. At thresholds of $75 000 and $100,000, paclitaxel plus cisplatin at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) is the preferred regimen. At thresholds of $50,000 and above, best supportive care is the least preferred regimen.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This decision framework allows the comparison of different treatment regimens based on various cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our analysis also supports the use of chemotherapy regimens and the abandonment of best supportive care as the standard of care for patients with advanced NSCLC. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321-9].
authors.affiliation: Statistics Canada, Ottawa.
authors.forename: J M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Berthelot
authors.forename: B P
authors.initials: BP
authors.lastname: Will
authors.forename: W K
authors.initials: WK
authors.lastname: Evans
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Coyle
authors.forename: C C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Earle
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Bordeleau
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D000553:Ambulatory Care; D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002289:Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics / Q000556:secondary; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003663:Decision Trees; D006801:Humans; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics / Q000473:pathology; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D011788:Quality of Life; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States; D026712:Value of Life