Anti-cancer drugs
-
The goals of chemotherapy for recurrent/refractory ovarian cancer are the palliation of disease-related symptoms, and improvement of quality and quantity of life. Previous studies of palliative therapy in advanced ovarian cancer have focused on surrogate measures of patient benefit rather than evaluating palliative end-points such as quality of life and clinical benefit. The impact of palliative chemotherapy on survival, quality of life and cost in advanced ovarian cancer are unknown as there have been no studies comparing palliative treatment with best supportive care. ⋯ Although palliative therapy may be associated with high costs, even modest prolongation of survival can render such treatment cost-effective. The major cost saving associated with palliative therapy is from the reduced need for hospitalization towards the end of life. Future studies in recurrent/refractory ovarian cancer should focus on palliative end-points and include a comparison with best supportive care.
-
Anemia represents a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy, and results in diminished overall well-being as well as side effects such as dyspnea, fatigue and decreased appetite. Treatment options for chemotherapy-induced anemia are transfusion of red blood cells and s.c. erythropoietin. Although transfusion is generally well tolerated, patients usually experience fluctuating hemoglobin levels because of hesitancy to transfuse to normal hemoglobin levels. ⋯ The costs associated with the drug have limited its use. In addition, patient preferences for the two treatment options have not been investigated. Economic analyses, including consideration of the costs associated with medical care as well as the consequences, will be essential in evaluating the potential of transfusions and erythropoietin in treating the anemia associated with cancer chemotherapy.
-
Economic evaluation is a comparative analysis of alternatives in terms of both their costs and consequences. Therefore, the basic task of economic evaluation is to identify, measure, value and compare the costs and effects of the alternatives being considered. In this paper, the methodology of economic evaluation in general and in cancer in particular is reviewed and practical issues are illuminated. ⋯ In cancer treatment, health policy concerns both preventive, curative and palliative strategies, and decisions are often made at the micro and macro level. Economic evaluation can provide essential information on the costs and benefits of each option, and consequently on the optimal policy mix, and thus support decisions on the adoption and utilization of new treatments. Such information may assist policy makers in formulating regulatory policies and legislation, industry in developing products, health professionals in treating and serving patients, and consumers in making personal health decisions.
-
Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
Tropisetron in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting over six courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.
Tropisetron (Navoban") suppresses nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy by antagonizing central and peripheral 5-HT3 receptors. In this open-label study, tropisetron was evaluated in 873 patients who were either refractory to antiemetic treatment during previous chemotherapy or at high risk of emesis as a result of current chemotherapy. The most commonly used agents alone or in combination were cyclophosphamide (35%), fluorouracil (30%), carboplatin (24%) and cisplatin (21%). ⋯ There were few failures after complete and partial response, at maximum 3 and 15%, respectively. Moreover, 24-38% of those with partial response and 7-29% of those with failure could achieve a complete response during the following cycle. The treatment was well tolerated, the most frequently reported adverse events being constipation (3.7%) and headache (2.6%).
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical Trial
A multicenter, double-blind comparison of i.v. and oral administration of ondansetron plus dexamethasone for acute cisplatin-induced emesis. Ondansetron Acute Emesis Study Group.
A total of 530 patients were treated in this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of a once daily ondansetron oral regimen with a once daily i.v. dosing regimen over a 24 h period, administered to patients prior to receiving cisplatin (50 mg/m2 or greater) chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of ondansetron plus dexamethasone given either orally (ondansetron 24 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, n=262) or i.v. (ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg, n=268). Complete control of emesis (i.e. no emetic episodes, no rescue and no premature withdrawal) was achieved for 85% of patients (224 of 262) in the oral group and 83% (223 of 268) in the i.v. group. ⋯ There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for any of the assessments of efficacy, which included time to first emetic episode, number of emetic episodes and the worst grade of nausea occurring over the 24 h study period. Once daily ondansetron oral and i.v., in combination with dexamethasone, was well tolerated in this study. In conclusion, once daily oral ondansetron 24 mg plus dexamethasone is equally effective in the control of emesis and nausea induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy as once daily ondansetron 8 mg i.v. plus dexamethasone.