Latest News

Findings from a multicenter cohort study support screening adherence as a key lung cancer screening quality metric.
Lung Cancer Screening Adherence Decreases Across Subsequent Testing

April 24th 2025

Findings from a multicenter cohort study support screening adherence as a key lung cancer screening quality metric.

A systematic review shows that well-designed randomized clinical trials are necessary to optimize treatment strategies with tislelizumab in lung cancer.
Tislelizumab Significantly Boosts Survival in Lung Cancer Trials

April 23rd 2025

“These results and the lack of systemic toxicity observed with [TTFields] provide patients with a promising new treatment option,” according to Joachim Aerts, MD, an investigator of the phase 3 LUNAR trial (NCT02973789).
TTFields Therapy Earns EU Approval in Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

April 23rd 2025

Ivonescimab/Chemo Prolongs PFS in 1L Advanced Squamous NSCLC
Ivonescimab/Chemo Prolongs PFS in 1L Advanced Squamous NSCLC

April 23rd 2025

3 Things You Should Know About Unresectable NSCLC
3 Things You Should Know About Unresectable NSCLC

April 21st 2025

More News


Site Logo

Overview of Economic Analysis of Le Chevalier Vinorelbine Study

March 1st 1998

The costs and relative cost-effectiveness of different treatments for common illnesses are an increasing concern. New treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer are having an impact. However, these treatments vary markedly in their direct financial costs, toxicity, and quality-of-life profiles. Direct comparisons between most combination regimens are not yet completed. Vinorelbine (Navelbine) is the first new agent approved in the United States for the treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in more than a decade. We previously reported results of a post-hoc economic analysis that compared the anticipated cost-effectiveness of three regimens used to treat non-small-cell lung cancer (vinorelbine alone versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin [Platinol] versus vindesine plus cisplatin, the assumed standard treatment in Europe). Results showed that vinorelbine plus cisplatin was the most effective regimen. Using vinorelbine alone as a baseline, vinorelbine plus cisplatin added 56 days of life at an additional cost of $2,700, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,700 per year of life gained. Similarly, vindesine plus cisplatin added 19 days of life at a cost of $1,150, or $22,100 per year of life gained. Compared to vindesine plus cisplatin, vinorelbine plus cisplatin added 37 days of life at a cost of $1,570, or $15,500 per year of life gained. We conclude that the incremental cost-effectiveness of the vinorelbine plus cisplatin regimen was less than most commonly accepted medical interventions. If vinorelbine is preferred because of its favorable toxicity profile, the additional effectiveness of cisplatin added substantial efficacy at an acceptable cost.[ONCOLOGY(Suppl 4):14-17, 1998]