IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Cost Effectiveness of Treatment with New Agents in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

  • Mathilda L. Bongers

    (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Veerle M.H. Coup

    (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Elise P. Jansma

    (VU Amsterdam University Library, Medical Library, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Egbert F. Smit

    (Department of Pulmonary Diseases, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Carin A. Uyl-de Groot

    (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

Registered author(s):

    In past decades, studies focusing on new chemotherapeutic agents for patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer have reported only modest gains in survival. These health gains are achieved at considerable cost, but economic evidence is lacking on superiority of one agent in terms of cost effectiveness. The objective of this systematic review was to assess fully published cost-effectiveness studies comparing the new agents docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine and pemetrexed, and the targeted therapies erlotinib and gefitinib with one another. We performed systematic searches in the bibliographic databases PubMed, EMBASE and Health Economic Evaluations (HEED) [via the Cochrane Library] for fully published studies from the past 10 years. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers according to a priori inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers using standardized assessment tools. A total of 222 potential studies were identified; 11 studies and six reviews were included. The methodological quality of the full economic evaluations was fairly good. Transparency in costs and resource use, details on statistical tests and sensitivity analysis were points for improvement. In first-line treatment, gemcitabine+cisplatin was cost effective compared with other platinum-based regimens (paclitaxel, docetaxel and vinorelbine). In one study, pemetrexed+cisplatin was cost effective compared with gemcitabine+cisplatin in patients with non-squamous-cell carcinoma. In second-line treatment, docetaxel was cost effective compared with best supportive care; erlotinib was cost effective compared with placebo; and docetaxel and pemetrexed were dominated by erlotinib. We found indications of superiority in terms of cost effectiveness for gemcitabine+cisplatin in a first-line setting, and for erlotinib in a second-line setting.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 17-34

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:1:p:17-34
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:1:p:17-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.