[Evaluation of clinical practice in pulmonary oncology: a review of the literature]. / Evaluation des pratiques en cancérologie pulmonaire: analyse de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of clinical practice in pulmonary oncology aims to improve both the quality of care and the control of costs. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: A Medline search of the literature allowed analysis of the published studies of the evaluation of clinical practice. They showed that though 82-95% of patients with small cell bronchial carcinoma were treated with a combination of etoposide and cisplatin, less than half of the patients with non-small cell cancer received treatment. VIEWPOINT: Various factors such as age, comorbidity, race, socio-economic status and gender affect the treatment decisions. There is also a discrepancy between the trial data and clinical practice that could be explained by two factors. On one hand advances are not always adopted by doctors and on the other hand the patient populations treated may sometimes be different from those in the trials. CONCLUSION: Though the number of published studies is still low an increase is to be expected on account of the publication of new regulations concerning the evaluation of clinical practice and the appropriate use of drugs.

The role of pilot studies in the economic evaluation of health technologies.

An increasing number of economic evaluations are being conducted alongside clinical trials. While this practice offers the prospect of collecting comprehensive and accurate cost data, it requires considerable time and effort. In the case of clinical data, key analytic decisions such as which data to collect and sample size are often made with reference to smaller (pilot) trials. However, this approach is not normally followed in the case of economic evaluation. This study was based on a recently completed health technology assessment comparing conventional radiotherapy with continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) for patients with head and neck cancer or carcinoma of the bronchus. In the full health technology assessment, cost data were available for 526 head and neck patients (314 CHART and 212 conventional therapy) and 286 bronchus patients (175 CHART and 109 conventional therapy). In order to simulate a pilot study, data were extracted for the patients recruited to both trials in the first 3 months. These were then compared with the full data set in order to assess whether such a pilot study would have given useful guidance on: a) the usefulness of undertaking a full study; b) the sample size required; and c) the important resource items for which comprehensive data collection would be required. Pilot studies can be helpful in determining the likely advantages of undertaking full economic evaluations and in identifying important resource items. Therefore, it is important that clinical researchers and research funding bodies create the necessary time window to enable such studies to take place. However, formal sample size calculations are more difficult to perform on limited data, since they also require knowledge of the unit cost (or prices) to be attached to the resource items and the correlation between costs and clinical effects.

Costs of conventional radical radiotherapy versus continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) in the treatment of patients with head and neck cancer or carcinoma of the bronchus. Medical Research Council CHART Steering Committee.

The objective of this study was to compare the costs of treatment with continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) and those of conventional radiotherapy for patients with (1) head and neck cancer and (2) carcinoma of the bronchus. The study was conducted concurrently with two multicentre randomized controlled trials. Data were collected on the use of hospital and community service resources and patients' travel for treatment. Data on resource use up to 3 months after entry to the study were available for 526 head and neck patients (314 receiving CHART and 212 conventional therapy) and 284 bronchus patients (175 CHART and 109 conventional therapy). For patients with head and neck cancer, CHART cost Pounds 1092 (P < 0.001; 95% CI 763-1421) more than conventional therapy. For patients with carcinoma of the bronchus, CHART was also more costly, with a cost differential of Pounds 698 (P < 0.001; 95% CI 392-1003). The magnitude of the cost differentials could be reduced if the working hours of radiotherapy departments were rearranged and all hospitals had access to hostel facilities. The results of this cost analysis will help to facilitate a decision about whether the benefits of CHART, as determined by the clinical trials, are worth the additional costs of hospital-based resource use. The collection of detailed patient-specific resource-use data from a number of centres allows the determination of ways for reducing the cost differential between therapies and making CHART a more cost effective treatment alternative.