European journal of cancer : official journal for European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) [and] European Association for Cancer Research (EACR)
-
Comparative Study
Irinotecan in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: improved survival and cost-effect compared with infusional 5-FU.
In a recent multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study (Rougier and colleagues, Lancet 1998, 352, 1407-1412), irinotecan significantly increased survival without any deterioration in quality of life compared with best-estimated infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapy in the setting of second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of the cost-effectiveness analysis reported here was to compare the economic implications, from a U. K. perspective, of replacing 5-FU therapy [either as a single agent (Lokich regimen, B2) or in combination with folinic acid (de Gramont regimen, B1, or AIO regimen, B3)] with irinotecan as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. ⋯ Based on the incremental costs per life year gained (LYG), irinotecan was considered to be cost-effective by commonly accepted criteria compared with either the B1 or B2 regimens. Irinotecan was cost-saving compared with the B3 regimen (that is significant survival gain and a reduction in costs). Thus, not only is there strong evidence for the use of irinotecan as standard second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer,but the results of this prospective economic evaluation have shown that irinotecan also represents good value for money in this clinical setting.
-
This commentary evaluates progress made in the treatment of breast cancer during the twentieth century. Most of the period from 1900 to 1970 was governed by the 'non-science' of anecdotalism and classical inductivism and was marked by the absence of a scientific gestalt. In keeping with the Halstedian concept that breast cancer was a local disease that spread throughout the body by contiguous extension and could be cured by more expansive surgery, the disease was treated with radical surgery. ⋯ The numerous uncertainties, issues and questions that have arisen following the report of each advance in treatment, the surfeit of new information that has not yet been integrated into treatment strategies, the undesirable consequences of enhanced tumour detection, a reversion to Halstedianism and anecdotalism, and the uncertainty of therapeutic decision making resulting from the demonstration of small but statistically significant benefits, particularly in patients with good prognosis, need to be addressed. Inappropriate interpretation of those circumstances threatens to deny women with breast cancer and those at high risk for the disease the opportunity to benefit from treatments that have been proven to be of worth. Perhaps the most important accomplishment of the twentieth century relates to the change in the pro