Multicenter phase II trial of carboplatin/vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer efficacy and impact on quality of life: Groupe Francais de Pneumo-Cancerologie Study 9902.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of lung cancer cases are diagnosed in patients > 70 years of age. Standard chemotherapy regimens are generally considered too toxic for elderly patients. We conducted a multicenter phase II trial to determine the efficacy and safety of carboplatin combined with vinorelbine every 4 weeks as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were eligible if they were aged >OR= 70 years, had stage IIIB (with pleural effusion) or stage IV NSCLC, had a performance status of 0/1, had not previously received chemotherapy, and had normal organ function. Forty patients (31 men and 9 women) were enrolled and received 3-5 courses of treatment. Median age was 72 years (range, 70-82 years). Eighty percent of patients had stage IV NSCLC, with squamous cell (n=21), adenocarcinoma (n=12), and undifferentiated (n=7) histologies. RESULTS: Forty patients were assessable for toxicity and 32 for treatment response. Among these 32 patients, 8 had a partial response (intent-to-treat response rate, 20%), and 10 (25%) had stable disease. The median survival was 7.8 months (range, 4-11.6 months). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 25% and 7%, respectively; median time to progression was 4.3 months (range, 0.2-13.8 months). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was seen in 27 patients (68%), and grade 3/4 anemia was seen in 5 patients (13%). One patient died of febrile neutropenia during treatment. The main nonhematologic adverse effect was fatigue (grade 3/4 in 18% of patients). CONCLUSION: Carboplatin/vinorelbine is well tolerated by elderly patients with extensive-stage NSCLC. Efficacy is low but similar to that of other treatments used in this setting.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: an economic, randomized, prospective, multicenter phase III trial comparing docetaxel and pemetrexed: the GFPC 05-06 study.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on the cost-effectiveness of second-line chemotherapies for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this phase III, randomized, multicenter, prospective study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and pemetrexed, two widely used drugs. METHODS: We compared, from a payer's perspective, the directs costs and effectiveness of docetaxel (75 mg/m, arm A) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m, arm B) administered every 3 weeks to NSCLC patients who had progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Monthly health utilities (based on disease states: responding, stable or progressive, and grade 3/4 toxicities) were derived from the literature. Costs were prospectively assessed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were enrolled between February 2006 and June 2008. The patients in the docetaxel and pemetrexed arms had similar clinical characteristics and treatment efficacy (respective objective response rates 10.7% and 12%; median progression-free survival times 2.8 and 2.5 months; median survival times 8.0 and 6.4 months, respectively). Grade 3/4 toxicities were significantly less frequent with pemetrexed (52.0% versus 33.3%, p = 0.02). Docetaxel was associated with lower treatment-period costs (€9709 ± €6272 versus €13,436 ± €6508, p < 0.001). Docetaxel had a more favorable cost-utility ratio than pemetrexed. When compared with best supportive care, the cost-utility was €32,652/quality-adjusted life year for docetaxel and €40,980/quality-adjusted life year for pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Second-line treatment for NSCLC is more cost-effective with docetaxel than with pemetrexed. Both strategies have acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios compared with commonly used and reimbursed regimens for advanced NSCLC.