New Chemotherapy Treatments in Advanced Cancer Patients
An Easily Applicable Evaluation of Clinical Efficacy and Cost–effectiveness

References

• Ferguson JSJ, Summerhayers M, Masters S, Schey S, Smith IE. New treatment for advanced cancer: an approach to prioritiza-tion. Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 1268–73.
   Google Scholar
• Beck WT, Dalton WS. Drug resistant mechanisms. In: De vita V, Hellman S, Rosemberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles and practices of oncology, 5th ed. New York: Lippincott; 1997. 498–508.
   Google Scholar
• Ranghammar P, Brorsson B, Hygren P, Grimelins B. for the SBU-group. A prospective study for the use of chemotherapy in Sweden and assessment of the use in relation to scientific evidence. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 391–411.
   Google Scholar
• Khuri FR, Herbst RS, Fossella FV. Emerging therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 739–44.
   Google Scholar
• Berrino F, Capocaccia R, Esteve J. (1999). Survival of cancer patients in Europe: The Eurocare Study II. IARC Scientific Publication no. 151. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
   Google Scholar
• Howe HL, Wingo PhA, Thun MJ et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer (1973 through 1998), featuring cancers with recent increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 824–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoel DG, Davis DL, Miller AB. Trends in cancer mortality in 15 industrialized countries:1969-1986. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 313–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bailar JC. 3rd, Smith EM. Progress against cancer? N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1226–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubens RD. Key issues in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Pharm Econ 1996; 9: 1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nygren P, Glimelius B. for the SBU-group. The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Report on cancer chemotherapy. Project objectives, the work-ing process, key definitions and general aspects on cancer trial methodology and interpretation. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 155–65.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Cancer Plan. UK: Department of Health. September 2000. www.doh.gov.uk/cancer.
   Google Scholar
• Norges Offentlige Utredningar. Care and knowledge. Norsk Kreftplan. 1997: 20 (quoted in 2).
   Google Scholar
• Berenson R, Holuhan J. Sources of the growth in medicare physician expenditure. J Am Med Assoc 1992; 267: 687–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans DB, Tandon A, Murray Ch JL, Laner JA. Comparative efficiency of national health systems: cross national econo-metric analysis. Br Med J 2001; 323: 307–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Desch ChE. Efficacy and cost-effective-ness of cancer treatment: rational allocation of resources based on decision analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1460–74.
   Google Scholar
• Evans WK. A comparison with standard chemotherapy and best supportive care: cost-effectiveness of vinorelbine alone, vinorelbine plus cisplatin for stage IV NSCLC. Oncology 1998; 12: 3038–48.
   Google Scholar
• McKibbon A, Eady A, Marks S. PDQ evidence-based princi-ples and practice. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker Inc.; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Douillard JY, Cunninham D, Roth AD, et al. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2000; 355: 1041–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham D. Mature results from three large controlled studies with raltitrexed (`Tomudex'). Br J Cancer 1998; 77: 15–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, et al. Leucovorin and flurouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2938–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr R, et al. Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum containing chemotherapy regimens. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2354–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonomi P, Kyung Mann K, Fairclough D, et al. Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 623–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crino L, Scagliotti GV, Ricci S, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomised phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3522–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardenal F, López-Cabrerizo MP, Ant6n A, et al. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3522–30.
   Google Scholar
• Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Soria JC, et al. Long term analysis of survival in the European randomized trial comparing vinorelbine/cisplatin to vindesine/cisplatin and vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The Oncologist 2001; 6(Suppl 1): 8–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemother-apy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 783–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naholtz JM, Falkson G, Chan S, (TAX306 group).. A phase III trial comparing doxorubicin and docetaxel to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first line CT for MBC. Breast 1999; 8: 213.
   Google Scholar
• Gasparini G, Caffo 0, Barni S, et al. Vinorelbine is an active antiproliferative agent in pretreated advanced breast cancer patients: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 2094–101.
   Google Scholar
• Dieras V, Marty M, Tubiana N, et al. Phase II randomized study of paclitaxel versus mitomycin in advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1995; 22: 33–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nabholtz J, Senn H, Bezwoda W, et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus mitomycin plus vinblastine in patients with metastatic breast cancer progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. 304 Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1413–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire VP. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon AN, Fleagle JT, Guthri D, Parkin DE, Gore M. Abstract ASCO 36th Annual Meeting Mayo 2000; 19: 380.
   Google Scholar
• Ten Bokkel HW, Gore M, Carmichael J, et al. Topoptecan versus paclitaxel for the treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2183–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yung W. A phase II study of temozolamide vs procarbazine in patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse. Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 88–93.
   Google Scholar
• Yung WKA, Prados DM, Yaya-tur R. Temodal Brain Tumor Group. Multicenter phase II trial of temozolamide in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or anaplastic oligoastrocytoma at first relapse. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2762–71.
   Google Scholar
• Osaba D, Brada M, Yung WKA, Prados M. Health-related quality of life in patients treated with temozolamide versus procarbazine for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1481–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freedman LS, Granbard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. Stat Med 1992; 11: 167–78.
   Google Scholar
• Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and econom-ics evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146: 473–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J. Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 205–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moinpour CM. Measuring quality of life: an emerging science. Semin Oncol 1994; 21: 48–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson G, Nygren P, Glimelius B. for the SBU-group. Economic aspects of chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 2000; 40: 412–33.
   Google Scholar
• Lubsen J, Hoes A, Grobbee D. Implications of trial results: the potentially misleading notions of number needed to treat and average duration of life gained. Lancet 2000; 356: 1757–9.
   Google Scholar
• Desch ChE, Benson AB III, Smith TJ, et al. Recommended colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1312–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenbery W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• American Society of Clinical Oncology. Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 671–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Stanford JL, et al. Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1719–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gunnars B, Nygren P, Glimelius B. for the SBU-group. Assessment of quality of life during chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 175–84.
   Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Thirio P, Carlson R, Burzykouwski T. for the Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Relation between tumour response to first line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2000; 356: 373–8.
   Google Scholar
• Garattini S, Bertele V. Efficacy, safety, and cost of new anticancer drugs. Br Med J 2002; 325: 269–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson NK. Quality of life research in cancer clinical trials: a need for common rules and language. Oncology 1990; 4: 59–66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lister-Sharp D, McDonagh MS, Khan KS, Kleijnen J. A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer. Health Technology Assessment 2000; 4:(no. 17).
   Google Scholar
• Dinnes J, Cave C, Huang S, Major K, Milne R. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of temozolamide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma: a rapid and systema-tic review Health Technology Assessment 2001; 5:(no. 13).
   Google Scholar
• Task Force on Principles for Economics Analysis. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 61–70.
   Google Scholar
• Smith TJ, Bodurtha JN. Ethical considerations in oncology: balancing the interest of patients, oncologists and society. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2464–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, et al. Attitudes to chemother-apy: comparing views of patients with those of doctors, nurses and general public. Br Med J 1990; 300: 1458–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002; 360: 711–5.
   Google Scholar
• Cocquyt V, Moeremans K, Annemans L, Clarys P, Van Belle S. Long-term medical costs of postmenopausal breast cancer therapy. Ann Oncol 2003; 14: 1057–63.
   Google Scholar
• Ravdin PM, Siminoff IA, Harvey JA. Survey of breast cancer patients concerning their knowledge and expectations of adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 515–21.
   Google Scholar