INTRODUCTIONGemcitabine and paclitaxel (Taxol) each provides an efficacious non-platinum option for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the optimal dosage and schedule of the two agents used in combination are not well defined.METHODSPreviously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine-paclitaxel on a traditional three-weekly schedule (Arm A) or a novel weekly schedule (Arm B) as follows-Arm A (three-weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min on days 1 and 8 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 infused>3 h on day 1 of a 21-day cycle or Arm B (weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min and paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 infused>1 h, both administered on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle.RESULTSOne hundred patients received at least one dose of treatment. The weekly schedule, Arm B, was more efficacious and less hematologically toxic than Arm A. Confirmed complete and partial response rates were 28.2% and 26.8%, respectively. Median survival was 10.3 months on Arm B and 7.9 months on Arm A (log-rank P=0.10); 1- and 2-year survival rates also favor Arm B: 42.0% versus 34.0% and 18.0% versus 6.0%. Progression-free survival was 5.8 versus 4.8 months, again favoring Arm B (log-rank P=0.06). There was a two-fold lower frequency of grade 3/4 hematologic events with Arm B as follows: neutropenia (16% versus 30%), thrombocytopenia (4% versus 8%), and anemia (2% versus 6%). One patient (2%) in each treatment group developed febrile neutropenia.CONCLUSIONIn this trial, both schedules were efficacious and tolerable, although the weekly schedule resulted in improved survival and lower hematologic toxicity compared with a three-weekly schedule. The weekly schedule of gemcitabine-paclitaxel indicates an improved therapeutic index.

PURPOSE: To conduct a comprehensive review of the health services literature to search for evidence that hospital or physician volume or specialty affects the outcome of cancer care. METHODS: We reviewed the 1988 to 1999 MEDLINE literature that considered the hypothesis that higher volume or specialization equals better outcome in processes or outcomes of cancer treatments. RESULTS: An extensive, consistent literature that supported a volume-outcome relationship was found for cancers treated with technologically complex surgical procedures, eg, most intra-abdominal and lung cancers. These studies predominantly measured in-hospital or 30-day mortality and used the hospital as the unit of analysis. For cancer primarily treated with low-risk surgery, there were fewer studies. An association with hospital and surgeon volume in colon cancer varied with the volume threshold. For breast cancer, British studies found that physician specialty and volume were associated with improved long-term outcomes, and the single American report showed an association between hospital volume of initial surgery and better 5-year survival. Studies of nonsurgical cancers, principally lymphomas and testicular cancer, were few but consistently showed better long-term outcomes associated with larger hospital volume or specialty focus. Studies in recurrent or metastatic cancer were absent. Across studies, the absolute benefit from care at high-volume centers exceeds the benefit from break-through treatments. CONCLUSION: Although these reports are all retrospective, rely on registries with dated data, rarely have predefined hypotheses, and may have publication and self-interest biases, most support a positive volume-outcome relationship in initial cancer treatment. Given the public fear of cancer, its well-defined first identification, and the tumor-node-metastasis taxonomy, actual cancer care should and can be prospectively measured, assessed, and benchmarked. The literature suggests that, for all forms of cancer, efforts to concentrate its initial care would be appropriate.

In 1985, a survey found that only about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. In response to statements made at a recent American Society of Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting questioning whether these data are still valid, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a new survey of oncologists attending a 1997 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual meeting. The results of that survey are summarized and analyzed.

Unnecessary, inappropriate, and futile care are given in all areas of health care including cancer care. Not only does such care increase costs and waste precious resources, but patients may have adverse outcomes when the wrong care is given. One of the ways to address this issue is to measure performance with the use of administrative data sets. Through performance measurement, the best providers can be chosen, providers can be rewarded on the basis of the quality of their performance, opportunities for improvement can be identified, and variation in practice can be minimized. Purchasers should take leadership role in creating data sets that will enhance, clinical performance. Specifically, purchasers should require the following from payers: 1) staging information; 2) requirements and/or incentives for proper International Classification of Diseases coding, including other important (comorbid) conditions; 3) incentives or requirements for proper data collection if the payer is using a reimbursement strategy that places the risk on the provider; and 4) a willingness to collect and report information to providers of care, with a view toward increasing quality and decreasing the costs of cancer care. Demanding better clinical performance can lead to better outcomes. Once good data is presented to patients and providers, better clinical behavior and improved cancer care systems will quickly follow. (C) 1998 American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer has been characterized as an expensive, futile, and self-induced illness. One of the most common questions pertaining to treatment is, “Is it worth it?” In the era of health care reform, attention has been directed toward common, high-cost illnesses that may benefit from closer examination of the clinical decisions that drive costs. This review explores the economic considerations of lung cancer treatment from the perspective of the patient, society, and those at risk for the costs of care. The concept of value is proposed as a framework to guide how lung cancer treatments should and should not be routinely used. Cost-effectiveness studies are highlighted that do not paint as dim a view of lung cancer therapy as may have been thought. However, it is clear that the 10 billion dollars spent yearly on lung cancer might be better used by limiting expenditures to the aspects of care that produce the best outcomes. This review includes comparisons of the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer care and treatments for other common cancers. It concludes with some strategies to use resources allocated to lung cancer more effectively.

High dose chemotherapy with the support of autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) or peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) has been increasingly used in a variety of haematological and epithelial cancers over the last decade. The rationale of this approach is to overcome the chemotherapy resistance of tumour cells by increasing the dose of cytotoxic drugs. However, the clinical benefit of dose-intensification has been difficult to prove. Almost all studies of ABMT have been done without randomised comparisons with the standard form of therapy for a specific condition. From an economic perspective, the cost of ABMT has been steadily decreasing with improvements in supportive care primarily. Still, current ABMT cost estimates range from $US70 000 to $US150 000 for each uncomplicated procedure. Despite the lack of compelling evidence in support of dose-intensification, ABMT has become a default standard of care after relapse for many patients with lymphoma or leukaemia. We used a decision analysis model to estimate the cost effectiveness of the timing of ABMT in relapsed Hodgkin's disease. The model illustrates the difficulty of using available clinical trial data when follow-up of promising early reports is not available. The model showed that in most situations the optimal strategy is ABMT in second relapse despite growing consensus that immediate ABMT is the treatment of choice. ABMT for women with high-risk or early metastatic breast cancer is one of the most controversial areas in clinical oncology. In the US, several ongoing major randomised trials are addressing the role of ABMT in breast cancer. Using a Markov process we found that ABMT is the preferred strategy under almost all assumptions. The size of the benefit and cost effectiveness of ABMT varied markedly depending on the assumptions made. The model does not supplant the need for randomised trials that concurrently measure efficacy, quality of life, and resource utilisation. However, such analyses point out the critical areas where costs could be cut substantially without effecting efficacy. Drawing conclusions about the cost effectiveness of ABMT for all conditions is hampered by the lack of randomised comparisons of efficacy. Concurrent economic appraisals of selected phase III comparative trials should be considered since the supportive care costs associated with ABMT appear to be stabilising. However, the most important point is that randomised trials are the only mechanism for estimating the therapeutic effect of high dose chemotherapy.

Economic issues have a prominent place in the debate about reforming the U.S. health care system. If more rational allocations of health care resources are to occur, the principles of decision analysis and clinical economics will need to be understood and used to assess current and new technologies. This requires an explicit assessment of the costs and benefits of a health care intervention, defining the current standard intervention, and clarifying the perspective of the assessment (societal, patient, payer, or provider). Detailed cost accounting of resources is optimal in contrast to costs or charges. These principles were included in 1992 proposed Canadian guidelines for using economic evaluations for adoption of new technologies. Such guidelines provide further impetus for the economic assessment of phase III clinical trials. When applied to peripheral blood progenitor cells, future studies should assess the incremental benefits of the strategy using the progenitor cells, not just the cost savings compared to traditional autologous bone marrow transplantation.

Cancer doctors and nurses are clustered in the metropolitan areas of Virginia. However, cancer patients are found throughout the state, and cancer mortality time trends are worse in the rural areas. Efforts to recruit cancer physicians and nurses to rural hospitals have been unsuccessful due to the practice characteristics, educational isolation, and economic disincentives. Our rural cancer education program involves the physicians and nurses currently in practice at two rural hospitals. We provide hands-on training in cancer care, continuing education, and intense week-long educational sessions. We have observed changes in physician and nurse practice styles that benefit the cancer patient including effective pain management, enrollment of patients on clinical trials, increased use of adjuvant therapy, and breast conservation. We are providing state-of-the-art cancer care at the rural hospitals in the Cancer Outreach Program. We have improved the educational opportunities and increased utilization of the resources of the academic career center. We can modify the practice characteristics by providing needed clinical programs and enhancing the rural hospital/academic medical center link. We have shown that rural cancer care can be revenue-neutral or positive, and we are seeking creative solutions to the financial disincentives of rural specialty practice. We can assist the rural hospital in the recruitment of oncology specialty nurses and physicians by providing cancer care services, and the patient caseload is available to teach prospective rural subspecialty practitioners at the rural hospitals.