Technology Assessment: Report on the Relative Efficacy of Oral Cancer Therapy for Medicare Beneficiaries Versus Currently Covered Therapy, Part 1. Table 10

You Are Here: AHRQ Archive Home > Technology Assessment Archive > Report on the Relative Efficacy of Oral Cancer Therapy for Medicare Beneficiaries Versus Currently Covered Therapy

This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.

Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.

Table 10. Quality-of-life Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Second-line Treatment for Advanced NSCLC

Study ID	No. of patients, age (median [range]), sex	Treatment (dosage/day)	QoL instrument(s)	QoL outcomes		QoL conclusions
Phase III
Shepherd, et al., 2005^24,25	731 pts 62 (NR) 35% F	Erlotinib 150 mg	TTDS	TTDS-cough TTDS-dyspnea TTDS-pain	4.9 vs. 3.7 (p = 0.04) 4.7 vs. 2.9 (p = 0.03) 2.8 vs. 1.9 (p = 0.04)	Erlotinib significantly better than placebo for improvement in TTDS-cough, TTDS-dyspnea, and TTDS-pain
Phase II
Kris, et al., 2003²⁹	216 pts 61 (30-84) 46% F	Gefitinib 250 mg Gefitinib 500 mg	LCS of FACT-L (improved indicates > or = 2 point improvement on 28-point scale)		43% improved 35% improved	In both dosage arms, symptom improvement better in PR (96%) vs. SD (73%) vs. PD (17%); adeno vs. other (43% vs. 30%)
Fukuoka, et al., 2003³⁰	209 pts 61 (28-85) 29% F	Gefitinib 250 mg Gefitinib 500 mg	LCS of FACT-L (improved indicates > or = 2 point improvement on 28-point scale) TOI FACT-L	LCS-FACT-L 7d TOI q28d FACT-L q28d LCS-FACT-L 7d TOI q28d FACT-L q28d	40.8% 20.9% (11.9-32.6) 23.9% (14.3-25.9) 37% 17.8% (9.8-28.5) 21.9% (13.1-33.1)	Gefitinib at either dose associated with measurable improvements compared with baseline in 3 different QoL measures
Perez-Soler et al., 2004³¹	57 pts 62 (31-83) 60% F	Erlotinib 150 mg	EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 administered at baseline, every 2 weeks for 2 months, then every month	Fatigue subscale Dyspnea subscale Cough subscale	67% to 49% 61% to 37% 60% to 39%	Erlotinib associated with measurable improvements compared with baseline in 3 different QoL symptom measures
Comparator studies
Hanna, et al., 2004³²		Permetrexed Docetaxel	ASBI of LCSS		21.2% (p = NS) 21.5%	Both arms with similar rates of improvement, stabilization, and worsening of symptoms
Shepherd, et al., 2000³³ as reported in Dancey et al., 2004⁴⁷	204 pts 61 (28-77) 35% F	BSC Docetaxel combined BSC Docetaxel combined	LCSS EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument with the LC13 lung cancer module	Patient (10 items) Observer (7 items) Pain/PF/GH	Significant difference for 1 (pain) of 17 items -19/-27/-27 -12/-19/-21 (change in subscale scores for pain/PF/GH)	Second-line docetaxel therapy for advanced NSCLC shows a trend (not statistically significant) towards less deterioration in QoL compared with BSC (in this trial that showed a statistically significant survival benefit)

Abbreviations: ASBI = Average Symptom Burden Index; BSC = best supportive care; EORTC QLQ-C30 = European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; FACT-L = Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung; GH = general health subscale; LCS or LCSS = Lung Cancer Symptom Scale; PF = physical functioning subscale.

Return to Document

The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.