Lung cancer is the primary cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, accounting for almost 30% of all cancer-related deaths. It is estimated that more than 177,000 cases of lung cancer were diagnosed in 1996. Direct medical expenditures for lung cancer reached some $5 billion in 1996 and represented about 15% of all cancer-related costs. In short, lung cancer presents a substantial challenge to clinicians and results in a significant human and economic burden.
Squamous cell, large cell, and adenocarcinomas of the lung comprise the class of tumors commonly referred to as non-small-cell lung carcinomas (NSCLC). Collectively, they represent more than 75% of all lung carcinomas. Average 5-year survival rates for non-small-cell lung cancer are about 13%, but prognosis is highly dependent on stage of disease. Five-year survival rates average about 5% for persons with stage IIIb disease and less than 2% for those with stage IV disease.
Therapeutic options for persons with non-small-cell lung cancer are limited. Surgical excision of the tumor is the treatment of choice, and persons with stage I disease have a better than 70% survival rate at 5 years. Yet, only 30% of patients are operable at presentation. For individuals with unresectable locally or regionally advanced disease, radiotherapy, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, is the preferred option. For those with metastatic disease, the goals of therapy include palliation and extension of survival. Patients with metastatic disease typically receive supportive care with or without chemotherapy. However, controversy exists over the appropriate role of chemotherapy in this setting.
Recent studies comparing radiotherapy plus chemotherapy vs radiotherapy alone in patients with advanced disease but no clinically evident metastases have been inconclusive.[4-10] A meta-analysis of studies evaluating the addition of a cisplatin (Platinol)-based regimen to radiotherapy alone suggested a 13% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, .87; 95% confidence interval [CI], .79 to .96). This result corresponds to an absolute survival benefit of 2% at 5 years.
Evidence of clinical benefit is also mixed when chemotherapy is compared to best supportive care (BSC) for stage IV patients.[12-19] A general trend favoring the use of chemotherapy has been reported, but only a few studies establish a statistically significant survival difference. In part, the equivocal results are related to the small sample sizes of the studies,  although meta-analyses support the finding of a modest benefit.[11,21-23]
Considering the dismal prognosis of these patients, some clinicians believe that even modest survival gains are important and should be aggressively pursued. Others disagree, maintaining that the minimal survival and palliative benefits from the use of these agents have little merit in clinical practice, especially in view of their associated toxicity and cost. These variations in belief and practice concerning the use of chemotherapy in inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer have been demonstrated by several studies.[24-28]
The purpose of this paper is to recount existing data on the economic consequences of chemotherapy in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer as they relate to the clinical risks and benefits of treatment. Data are presented that describe the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy, and although chemotherapys effect on quality of life is not a primary focus, this review addresses the importance of preferences in prioritizing benefits vs costs. We conclude by commenting on the role of chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer and by identifying the limitations of analyses that should be taken into account by future studies.
MEDLINE (1980-present), PDQ (September 1997), Cancerlit (1989-present), EMBASE (1989-present), and the Nursing & Allied Health (1982-present) databaseS were searched in September 1997 for studies published in English through the use of the following key terms: cost, cost-effectiveness, chemotherapy, and non-small-cell lung cancer. The reference list of relevant articles was also scrutinized, and several authors of economic analyses of therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer were queried about the existence of other published or unpublished studies. Studies that included chemotherapy but focused primarily on the role of colony-stimulating factors or antiemetics were excluded. Those evaluating patients with lung cancer, instead of non-small-cell lung cancer, were also excluded.
Various approaches to economic evaluation are possible. Studies of chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer have generally employed three types of analyses: costing, cost-minimization, and cost-effectiveness. Costing analysis describes the costs of providing a particular intervention and expresses the results in monetary units.
Cost-minimization analysis compares the costs of competing strategies that achieve the same clinical outcomes and selects the approach with the lowest cost. This method is limited, however, since different treatments seldom produce truly equivalent outcomes.
Cost-effectiveness analysis overcomes this limitation by simultaneously considering the comparative costs and outcomes of two or more treatment strategies. A ratio of cost to effectiveness is estimated. (The ratio has been defined as the incremental price of obtaining a unit of health effect from a given health intervention when compared to an alternative intervention. Results are reported as monetary unit per outcome gained.) Higher priority is given to interventions with lower cost-effectiveness ratios because they offer the maximum aggregate health benefit for a particular expenditure. Although any clinically measurable end point can be used, most analyses use years of life gained. We reviewed the economic evaluations for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using life-years or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.
Seventeen studies were identified. Five were excluded from this review. Of the five, three were published only in abstract form,[30-32] and a fourth that considered the costs of using fazarabine for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer was excluded because the drug had no demonstrable activity. Rees reported a notional patient benefit year cost for two non-small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy regimens, but we excluded this fifth study because the method of economic analysis used in the study is not a standard approach.
Table 1 provides a summary of the key elements of the 12 included studies.[35-46] A wide variety of economic evaluation approaches were utilized, and most analyses were reported within the last few years. Earlier analyses compared certain regimens to best supportive care or to other available products. Many of the more recent evaluations projected the clinical and economic impact of gemcitabine (Gemzar) prior to its approval in the United States from data accumulated in phase II trials.
All of the analyses reported direct medical costs, with most taking the perspective of a third-party payor, such as the government or an insurance company. Only six reported cost-effectiveness ratios with life-years or QALYs gained as the outcome measure. In most of the identified studies, trial data were supplemented with data from other sources, such as surveys, published guidelines, or chart reviews, in order to produce the economic evaluation.
To provide a thorough discussion of the important findings and issues raised by these studies, we gave detailed consideration to four of the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses. For three of these studies, researchers based their analyses on the results of individual clinical trials.
1. Cancer Facts & Figures1996. Atlanta, American Cancer Society, 1996.
2. Carney DN: Management (chemotherapy/best supportive care) of advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 22:58-62, 1995.
3. Cojean I, Le Chevalier T: Chemotherapy of stage IIIB and IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 6(suppl 3):S41-S44, 1995.
4. Mattson K, Holsti LR, Holsti P, et al: Inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: Radiation with or without chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 24:477-482, 1988.
5. Dillman RO, Seagren SL, Propert KJ, et al: A randomized trial of induction chemotherapy plus high-dose radiation vs radiation alone in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 323:940-945, 1990.
6. Le Chevalier T, Arriagada R, Quoix E, et al: Radiotherapy alone vs combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy in nonresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: First analysis of a randomized trial in 353 patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:417-423, 1991.
7. Morton RF, Jett JR, McGinnis WL, et al: Thoracic radiation therapy alone compared with combined chemoradiotherapy for locally unresectable non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Intern Med 115:681-686, 1991.
8. Schaake-Koning C, Van dan Bogaert W, Dalesio O, et al: Effects of concomitant cisplatin and radiotherapy on inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 326:524-530, 1992.
9. Blanke C, Ansari R, Mantravadi R, et al: Phase III trial of thoracic irradiation with or without cisplatin for locally advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: A Hoosier Oncology Group protocol. J Clin Oncol 13:1425-1429, 1995.
10. Sause WT, Scott C, Taylor S, et al: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 88-08 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 4588: Preliminary results of a phase III trial in regionally advanced, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:198-205, 1995.
11. Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group: Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomized clinical trials. Br Med J 311:899-909, 1995.
12. Cormier Y, Bergeron D, LaForge J, et al: Benefits of polychemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer 50:845-849, 1982.
13. Quoix E, Dietemann A, Charbonneau J, et al: Disseminated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A randomized trial of chemotherapy (CT) vs palliative care (PC). Lung Cancer 4(suppl):A127, 1988.
14. Rapp E, Pater JL, Willan A, et al: Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer: Report of a Canadian multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 6:633-641, 1988.
15. Ganz PA, Figlin RA, Haskell CM, et al: Supportive care vs supportive care and combination chemotherapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Does chemotherapy make a difference? Cancer 63:1271-1278, 1989.
16. Woods RL, Williams CJ, Levi J, et al: A randomized trial of cisplatin and vindesine vs supportive care only in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 61:608-611, 1990.
17. Cellerino R, Tummarello D, Guidi F, et al: A randomized trial of alternating chemotherapy vs best supportive care in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 9:1453-1461, 1991.
18. Kaasa S, Lund E, Thorud E, et al: Symptomatic treatment vs combination chemotherapy for patients with extensive non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer 67:2443-2447, 1991.
19. Cartei G, Cartei F, Cantone A, et al: Cisplatin-cyclophosphamide-mitomycin combination chemotherapy with supportive care vs supportive care alone for treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:794-800, 1993.
20. Vokes EE, Bitran JD, Vogelzang NJ: Chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: The continuing challenge. Chest 99:1326-1328, 1991.
21. Grilli R, Oxman AD, Julian JA: Chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: How much benefit is enough? J Clin Oncol 11:1866-1872, 1993.
22. Souquet PJ, Chauvin F, Boissel JP, et al: Polychemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Lancet 342:19-21, 1993.
23. Marino P, Pampallona S, Preatoni A, et al: Chemotherapy vs supportive care in advanced non small cell lung cancer: Results of a meta-analysis of the literature. Chest 106:861-865, 1994.
24. Palmer MJ, OSullivan B, Steele R, et al: Controversies in the management of non-small cell lung cancer: The results of an expert surrogate study. Radiother Oncol 19:17-28, 1990.
25. Lind SE, DelVecchio-Good MJ, Minkovitz CS, et al: Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies. Br J Cancer 64:391-395, 1991.
26. Maher EJ, Coia L, Duncan G, et al: Treatment strategies in advanced and metastatic cancer: Differences in attitude between the USA, Canada and Europe. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23:239-244, 1992.
27. Mackillop WJ, Dixon P, Zhou Y, et al: Variations in the management and outcome of non-small cell lung cancer in Ontario. Radiother Oncol 32:106-115, 1994.
28. Raby B, Pater J, Mackillop WJ: Does knowledge guide practice? Another look at the management of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1904-1911, 1995.
29. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, Oxford University Press, 1996.
30. Stathopoulos GP, Malamos NA, Papakostas P, et al: Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with cisplatin combination on outpatient basis: Effectiveness, toxicity and cost-benefit. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 14:A1181, 1995.
31. Khuri F, Daly B, Garcia-Moliner M, et al: A comprehensive analysis of the cost basis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) care in a single academic institution. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 14:A905, 1995.
32. Crott R, Gilis P, Martin C: Economic evaluation of the use of gemcitabine single agent in NSCLC in Belgium (abstract). Anti-Cancer Treatment, Sixth International Congress, p 75. Paris, France, February 6-9, 1996.
33. Williamson SK, Crowley JJ, Livingston RB, et al: Phase II trial and cost analysis of fazarabine in advanced non-small cell carcinoma of the lung: A Southwest Oncology Study. Invest New Drugs 13:67-71, 1995.
34. Rees GJG: Cost-effectiveness in oncology. Lancet 2:1405-1408, 1985.
35. Jaakkimainen L, Goodwin PJ, Pater J, et al: Counting the costs of chemotherapy in a National Cancer Institute of Canada randomized trial in nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 8:1301-1309, 1990.
36. Evans WK: Management of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and a consideration of cost. Chest 103(suppl 1):68S-71S, 1993.
37. Evans WK, Will BP: The cost of managing lung cancer in Canada. Oncology 9(suppl 11):147-153, 1995.
38. Kennedy W, Reinharz D, Tessier G, et al: Cost utility of chemotherapy and best supportive care in non-small-cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 8:316-323, 1995.
39. Koch P, Johnson N, van Schaik J, et al: Gemcitabine: Clinical and economic impact in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs 6(suppl 6):49-54, 1995.
40. Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Neighbors DM, et al: Economic evaluation of a randomized clinical trial comparing vinorelbine, vinorelbine plus cisplatin, and vindesine plus cisplatin for non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:2166-2173, 1995.
41. Copley-Merriman C, Corral J, King K, et al: Economic value of gemcitabine compared to cisplatin and etoposide in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 14:45-61, 1996.
42. Copley-Merriman C, Martin C, Johnson N, et al: Economic value of gemcitabine in non-small-cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 23:90-98, 1996.
43. Evans WK: An estimate of the cost effectiveness of gemcitabine in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 23(suppl 10):82-89, 1996.
44. Palmer AJ, Brandt A: The cost-effectiveness of four cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of stages IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer: An Italian perspective. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 51:279-288, 1996.
45. Vergnenègre A, Perol M, Pham E, et al: Cost analysis of hospital treatmenttwo chemotherapic regimens for non-surgical non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 14:31-44, 1996.
46. Evans WK, Le Chevalier T: The cost-effectiveness of Navelbine alone or in combination with cisplatin in comparison to other chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 32A: 2249-2255, 1996.
47. Weinstein MC, Stason WB: Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 296:716-721, 1977.
48. Torrance GW, Feeny D: Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5:559-575, 1989.
49. Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Douillard JY, et al: Randomized study of vinorelbine and cis-platin vs vindesine and cisplatin vs vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a European multicenter trial including 612 patients. J Clin Oncol 12:360-367, 1994.
50. Wolfson MC: POHEMa framework for understanding and modeling the health of human populations. Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census Annual Research Conference. Arlington, Virginia, 261-282, 1992.
51. Detsky AS, Naglie G: A clinicians guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 113:147-154, 1990.
52. Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Desch CE: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cancer treatment: Rational allocation of resources based on decision analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1460-1474, 1993.
53. Drummond M, Torrance G, Mason J: Cost-effectiveness league tables: More harm than good? Soc Sci Med 37:33-40, 1993.
54. Mackillop WJ, OSullivan B, Ward GK: Non-small cell lung cancer: How oncologists want to be treated. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13:929-934, 1987.
55. OConnor AMC, Boyd NF, Warde P, et al: Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: Influence of treatment outcomes description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chronic Dis 40:811-818, 1987.
56. OConnor AM: Effects of framing and level of probability on patients preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 42:119-126, 1989.
57. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, et al: Attitudes to chemotherapy: Comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. Br Med J 300:1458-1460, 1990.
58. Brundage MD, Davidson JR, Mackillop WJ: Trading treatment toxicity for survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:330-340, 1997.
59. Bennett CL, Smith TJ, George SL, et al: Free-riding and the prisoners dilemma: Problems in funding economic analyses of phase III cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 13:2457-2463, 1995.
60. Bennett CL, Armitage JL, Buchner D, et al: Economic analyses in phase III clinical cancer trials. Cancer Invest 12:336-342, 1994.
61. Weeks JC: Special issues that arise in applying techniques of economic analysis to evaluation of cancer therapies. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 19:11-12, 1995.
62. Torfs K: Increasing interest in the integration of economic evaluation in cancer clinical trials. Forum 1:4, 1996.
63. Bennett CL, Armitage JL, LeSage S, et al: Economic analyses of clinical trials in cancer: Are they helpful to policy makers? Stem Cells (Dayt) 12:424-429, 1994.
64. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ: The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Br Med J 313:275-283, 1996.