Pharmacoeconomic benefit of cisplatin and etoposide chemoregimen for metastatic non small cell lung cancer: An Indian study

Abstract

Background:The incidence of lung cancer is rising in developing countries like India. Due to unaffordability among the low socioeconomic status (SES) patients, there is a significant delay in seeking appropriate medical treatment due to which a high proportion of patients present in an advanced/metastatic stage and the outcomes are poor.Objective:In this study, we studied the progression-free survival (PFS) and the pharmacoeconomic benefits with the cisplatin plus etoposide (EtoP) chemo regimen and compared it with the current generation chemo regimen.Materials and Methods:We performed a retrospective analysis of metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer patients who received one or more cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy between 2011 and 2014.Results:Of the 304 patients, 56.6% of the patients were of the low SES. Of the low socioeconomic group patients, 67.45% and 31.4% received etoposide and paclitaxel platinum doublet combination regimen as first line, respectively. The mean PFS with the etoposide, paclitaxel, pemetrexed, and gemcitabine platinum-based doublet regimens were 9.35, 10, 10.76, and 9.83 months, respectively. Kaplan–Meier survival curve analysis showed a statistically significant initial survival with the first line EtoP cisplatin regimen for the initial 6 months of starting chemotherapy in comparison with the other regimens.Conclusions:This study showed a substantial pharmacoeconomic benefit with the cisplatin and etoposide chemo regimen in the lower socioeconomic group of patients. We believe that this is the first pharmacoeconomic study on metastatic non small cell lung treatment of great relevance to countries with limited resources.

Chemotherapy regimens for metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer: Generating good quality data is important before challenging evidence

“…on their experience with etoposide-cisplatin (Eto-Cis) in metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). [ 1 ] The authors concluded that this regimen had a substantial “pharmacoeconomic benefit” in patients belonging to “lower socioeconomic group.” However, there are several flaws in the design and statistical analysis of this paper due to which the above-mentioned conclusion may not necessarily by valid.…”