This randomised phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was conducted to compare vinorelbine/ carboplatin (VC) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) regarding efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity. Chemonaive patients with NSCLC stage IIIB/IV and WHO performance status 0 -2 were eligible. No upper age limit was defined. Patients received vinorelbine 25 mg m À2 or gemcitabine 1000 mg m À2 on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin AUC4 on day 1 and three courses with 3-week cycles. HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, before chemotherapy and every 8 weeks until 49 weeks. During 14 months, 432 patients were included (VC, n ¼ 218; GC, n ¼ 214). Median survival was 7.3 vs 6.4 months, 1-year survival 28 vs 30% and 2-year survival 7 vs 7% in the VC and GC arm, respectively (P ¼ 0.89). HRQOL, represented by global QOL, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea and pain, showed no significant differences. More grade 3 -4 anaemia (Po0.01), thrombocytopenia (Po0.01) and transfusions of blood (Po0.01) or platelets (Po0.01) were observed in the GC arm. There was more grade 3 -4 leucopoenia (Po0.01) in the VC arm, but the rate of neutropenic infections was the same (P ¼ 0.87). In conclusion, overall survival and HRQOL are similar, while grade 3 -4 toxicity requiring interventions are less frequent when VC is compared to GC in advanced NSCLC.

Background:The palliative role of chemoradiation in the treatment of patients with locally advanced, inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer stage III and negative prognostic factors remains unresolved.Methods:Patients not eligible for curative radiotherapy were randomised to receive either chemoradiation or chemotherapy alone. Four courses of intravenous carboplatin on day 1 and oral vinorelbin on days 1 and 8 were given with 3-week intervals. Patients in the chemoradiation arm also received radiotherapy with fractionation 42 Gy/15, starting at the second chemotherapy course. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity.Results:Enrolment was terminated due to slow accrual after 191 patients from 25 Norwegian hospitals were randomised. Median age was 67 years and 21% had PS 2. In the chemotherapy versus the chemoradiation arm, the median overall survival was 9.7 and 12.6 months, respectively (P<0.01). One-year survival was 34.0% and 53.2% (P<0.01). Following a minor decline during treatment, HRQOL remained unchanged in the chemoradiation arm. The patients in the chemotherapy arm reported gradual deterioration during the subsequent months. In the chemoradiation arm, there were more hospital admissions related to side effects (P<0.05).Conclusion:Chemoradiation was superior to chemotherapy alone with respect to survival and HRQoL at the expense of more hospital admissions due to toxicity.

VC may be a useful supplemental tool to support primary health care providers at local hospitals and remote communities in their effort to offer efficient and high-quality cancer care.

There have been notable changes in incidence patterns and a remarkable improvement in survival for lung cancer over the last 17 years, most markedly for patients without distant metastases at the time of diagnosis. Hopefully, survival will improve even more when immunotherapy is implemented.

BackgroundPembrolizumab is a new drug approved in several countries for second-line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being programmed cell death ligand (PD-L1) positive. This drug has a high cost, and the cost-effectiveness ratio has been debated.Patients and methodsThe budget impact to the Northern Norwegian Regional Health Authority trust of implementing pembrolizumab in second-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive NSCLC was calculated. A model was developed employing data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, the KEYNOTE-010 study, the price list from The Hospital Pharmacy of North Norway, the cost of analysing PD-L1 expression and the cost of travelling. Today’s cost of second-line therapy was compared with the new standard employing pembrolizumab. The sale price of pembrolizumab in Norway was not published due to price confidentiality. Norwegian krone (NKr) was converted into Euros (€) at a rate of 1€=Nkr 8.8138. (Bank of Norway, 21 February 2017).Results105 new patients were identified available for pembrolizumab per year. The annual cost of pembrolizumab was €5.2 million, hospital pharmacy administration costs €0.1 million, PD-L1 testing €0.3 million, oncologist/pulmonologist/nurses €0.2 million, radiology €0.06 million and transportation €0.4 million. Savings due to avoided present second-line therapy was calculated €0.4 million. Consequently, the cost of implementing pembrolizumab was €5.5 million and the annual budget impact was €5.0 million. A mean gain of at least 9 months per patient treated was necessary to make pembrolizumab cost-effective.ConclusionsThe net budget impact of pembrolizumab was €5.0 million. The expenditure could not be indicated cost-effective. Price confidentiality is a growing problem in health economics and it has become a ‘menu without prices’ setting.