From randomised clinical trials to clinical practice: A pragmatic cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel in first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 2004, Pages 633-641

  Limat, Samuel ^a   Woronoff Lemsi, Marie Christine ^a   Menat, Céline ^a   Madroszyk Flandin, Anne ^a   Merrouche, Yacine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF BESANÇON   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CISPLATIN; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; PACLITAXEL;

ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; OBSERVATION; OVARY CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS, PHYTOGENIC; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CISPLATIN; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PACLITAXEL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 3242688628     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200422100-00002     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Du Bois A. Treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001 Dec; 37 Suppl. 9: 1-7
2. McGuire W, Hoskins W, Brady M, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996 Jan; 334 (1): 1-6
3. Piccart M, Bertelsen K, James K, et al. Randomized intergroup trial of cisplatin-paclitaxel versus cisplatin-cyclophosphamide in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: three-year results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 May; 92 (9): 699-708
4. Atkins C. Randomized intergroup trial of cisplatin-paclitaxel versus cisplatin-cyclophosphamide in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: three-year results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Sep; 92 (17): 1446
5. Muggia F, Braly P, Brady M, et al. Phase III randomized study of cisplatin versus paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with suboptimal stage III or IV ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2000 Jan; 18(1): 106-15
6. The International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON) Group. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus standard chemotherapy with either single-agent carboplatin or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin in women with ovarian cancer: the ICON3 randomised trial. Lancet 2002 Aug; 360: 505-15
7. Messori A, Trippoli S, Becagli P, et al. Pharmacoeconomic profile of paclitaxel as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 1996; 78: 2366-73
8. McGuire W, Neugut A, Arikian S, et al. Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel as alternative combination therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997 Feb; 15 (2): 640-5
9. Elit L, Gafni A, Levine M. Economic and policy implications of adopting paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer: an Ontario perspective. J Clin Oncol 1997 Feb; 15 (2): 632-9
10. Berger K, Fischer T, Szucs T. Cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus cyclophosphamide and cisplatin as first-line therapy in advanced ovarian cancer: a European perspective. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34 (12): 1894-901
11. Neymark N, Gorlia T, Adriaenssen I, et al. Cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel/cisplatin compared to cyclophosphamide/cisplatin in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in Belgium. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (7): 485-97
12. Young M, Plosker G. Paclitaxel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2001 Dec; 19 (12): 1227-59
13. Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, GW Torrance. New York: Methods of the economic evaluation of health care programs. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1997
14. Revicki D, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world: effectiveness versus efficacy studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 May; 15 (5): 423-34
15. Baltussen R, Leidl R, Ament A. Real world designs in economic evaluation: bridging the gap between clinical research and policy-making. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Nov; 16 (5 Pt 1): 449-58
16. Simon G, Wagner E, Vonkorff M. Cost-effectiveness comparisons using "real world" randomized trials: the case of new antidepressant drugs. J Clin Epidemiol 1995 Mar; 48 (3): 363-73
17. Messori A, Cecchi M, Becagli P, et al. Pharmacoeconomic profile of paclitaxel as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer 1997 Jun; 79 (11): 2264-6
18. Eisenberg J. A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989 Nov; 262 (20): 2879-86
19. Le Pen C, Berdeaux G. Diagnosis related group costs in a regulated environment: a note about their economic interpretation. PharmacoEconomics 2000; 17 (2): 115-20
20. Payers P, Hand D. Generalization from phase III clinical trials: survival, quality of life and health economics. Lancet 1997 Oct; 350 (9083): 1025-7
21. Coyle D, Lee K. The problem of protocol driven costs in pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 Oct; 14 (4): 357-63
22. Van der Schueren E, Kesteloot K, Cleemput I, et al. Full report: economic evaluation in cancer care: questions and answers on how to alleviate conflicts between rising needs and expectations and tightening budgets. Eur J Cancer 2000 Jan; 36 (1): 13-36
23. Earle C, Chapman R, Baker C, et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000 Sep; 18 (18): 3302-17
24. du Bois A, Luck HJ, Meier W, et al. A randomized clinical trial of cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003 Sep; 95 (17): 1320-9
25. Bolis G, Scarfone G, Polverino G, et al. Paclitaxel 175 or 225mg per meters squared with carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2004 Feb; 22 (4): 686-90