Use of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for the Management of Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III Randomized ESOGIA-GFPC-GECP 08-02 Study.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is recommended to assess the vulnerability of elderly patients, but its integration in cancer treatment decision making has never been prospectively evaluated. Here, in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we compared a standard strategy of chemotherapy allocation on the basis of performance status (PS) and age with an experimental strategy on the basis of CGA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, elderly patients ≥ 70 years old with a PS of 0 to 2 and stage IV NSCLC were randomly assigned between chemotherapy allocation on the basis of PS and age (standard arm: carboplatin-based doublet if PS ≤ 1 and age ≤ 75 years; docetaxel if PS = 2 or age > 75 years) and treatment allocation on the basis of CGA (CGA arm: carboplatin-based doublet for fit patients, docetaxel for vulnerable patients, and best supportive care for frail patients). The primary end point was treatment failure free survival (TFFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tolerability, and quality of life. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-four patients were randomly assigned (standard arm, n = 251; CGA arm, n = 243). Median age was 77 years. In the standard and CGA arms, 35.1% and 45.7% of patients received a carboplatin-based doublet, 64.9% and 31.3% received docetaxel, and 0% and 23.0% received best supportive care, respectively. In the standard and CGA arms, median TFFS times were 3.2 and 3.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.1), and median OS times were 6.4 and 6.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.1). Patients in the CGA arm, compared with standard arm patients, experienced significantly less all grade toxicity (85.6% v 93.4%, respectively P = .015) and fewer treatment failures as a result of toxicity (4.8% v 11.8%, respectively; P = .007). CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, treatment allocation on the basis of CGA failed to improve the TFFS or OS but slightly reduced treatment toxicity.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

BACKGROUND: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Cost analysis of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in frail elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0505).

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of elderly patients (>70 years) with newly diagnosed NSCLC are shown to be frail by a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This population is more vulnerable to adverse effects of chemotherapy and might thus benefit more from targeted therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy after progression, compared with the reverse strategy, in frail elderly patients with advanced NSCLC participating in a prospective randomized phase II trial (GFPC 0505). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) and costs (limited to direct medical costs, from the third-party payer perspective) were collected prospectively until second progression. Costs after progression and health utilities (based on disease states and grade 3-4 toxicities) were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Median overall survival, QALYs, and total costs for the erlotinib-first strategy were 3.9 months, 0.33, and €15,233, respectively, compared with 4.4 months, 0.35, and €15,363 for the chemotherapy-first strategy. There was no significant difference between the 2 strategies in term of cost-effectiveness (respectively €47,381 and €44,350 per QALY). CONCLUSION: No difference in cost-effectiveness was found between an erlotinib-first strategy and a chemotherapy-first strategy in frail elderly patients with NSCLC.