Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial).

The short-term clinical results of the CLASICC trial indicated that clinical outcomes were similar between laparoscopic and open approaches. This study presents the short-term (3 month) cost analysis undertaken on a subset of patients entered into the CLASICC trial (682 of 794 patients). As expected the costs associated with the operation were higher in the 452 patients randomised to laparoscopic surgery (lap) compared with the 230 randomised to open procedure (open), Pounds 1703 vs Pounds 1386. This was partially offset by the other hospital (nontheatre) costs, which were lower in the lap group (Pounds 2930 vs Pounds 3176). The average cost to individuals for reoperations was higher in the lap group (Pounds 762 vs Pounds 553). Overall costs were slightly higher in the lap group (Pounds 6899 vs Pounds 6631), with mean difference of Pounds 268 (95%CI -689 to 1457). Sensitivity analysis made little difference to these results. The cost of rectal surgery was higher than for colon, for lap (Pounds 8259 vs Pounds 5586) and open procedures (Pounds 7820 vs Pounds 5503). The short-term cost analysis for the CLASICC trial indicates that the costs of either laparoscopic or open procedure were similar, lap surgery costing marginally more on average than open surgery.

Assessment of quality of life in the supportive care setting of the big lung trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Big Lung Trial (BLT) was a large, pragmatic trial to evaluate the addition of chemotherapy to primary treatment (ie, surgery, radical radiotherapy, or supportive care) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the supportive care group, there was a small but significant survival benefit in patients treated with chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone (no chemotherapy). A substudy was undertaken to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) implications of the treatment options. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 (QLQ-C30) and LC17, and daily diary cards. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC17 were collected at 0, 6 to 8, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. Diary cards were completed during the first 12 weeks of the study. The primary end point was global QoL at 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients were randomly assigned: 138 to no chemotherapy and 135 to chemotherapy. There was no evidence of a large detrimental effect on QoL of chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in global QoL or physical/emotional functioning, fatigue and dyspnea, and pain were detected at 12 weeks. Higher rates of palliative radiotherapy in the no chemotherapy arm may have lessened differences in QoL. Global QoL, role functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and constipation were prognostic indicators of survival at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: There were no important adverse effects of chemotherapy on QoL.

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life.

BACKGROUND: In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364). RESULTS: 65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival. CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.