Maximal Androgen Blockade: Final Analysis of EORTC Phase III Trial 30853

Denis, L.; Keuppens, F.; Smith, Philip; Whelan, Peter; Moura, J.L.; Newling, D. W. W.; Bono, Aldo; Sylvester, R.

doi:10.1159/000019546

Cited by 150 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In prostate carcinoma combined androgen blockade, a therapy combining a luteinizing hormonereleasing hormone analog with an antiandrogen agent, became more widespread. 21 In non-small cell lung carcinoma, the taxanes, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and irinotecan all came into prominence. 22,23 Thus, newer agents with considerably higher acquisition costs replaced (or were added to) older agents in each of the most common cancers.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outpatient cancer drug costs

Halbert

Zaher

Wade

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDTo the authors' knowledge, no analysis has examined the specific components of drug spending for overall cancer care. The authors' objective was to quantify and characterize trends in outpatient drug expenditures for cancer patients.METHODSThe authors retrospectively analyzed pharmacy and outpatient professional claims data from commercial and Medicare health maintenance organization enrollees with a solid tumor diagnosis in 1995 and 1998. Charges were subdivided by type of drug (antineoplastic drugs, chemotherapy adjuncts, supportive drugs, and drugs unrelated to cancer treatment).RESULTSIn 1995, 14,663 cancer patients received outpatient drug treatment and 13,829 patients in 1998. Total charges increased from $17.9 million (mean charge of $1218 per patient) to $27.9 million (mean charge of $2003 per patient), an average annual increase of 16%. Antineoplastic therapy constituted the largest component of cancer‐related drug costs (67%) and represented 76% of the increase from 1995 to 1998. Most charges were incurred in the professional setting for agents administered by injection. The primary explanation for the increases appeared to be a shift in treatment patterns toward newer, more expensive antineoplastic agents. Supportive therapy represented 17% of the increase in cancer drug costs, followed by chemotherapy adjuncts (7%). Charges for drugs unrelated to cancer therapy increased by 21% per year.CONCLUSIONSAntineoplastic therapy administered in an office or clinic was the single most important cost driver, with newer more expensive agents replacing older, less expensive drugs. Attempts to understand and control outpatient drug cost increases for cancer patients should focus primarily on antineoplastic therapy, especially the appropriate substitution of newer agents for older, less expensive alternatives. Some nonchemotherapy cancer drugs may offer an opportunity to improve quality of life with a relatively small effect on overall cancer drug costs. Cancer 2002;94:1142–50. © 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10347

show abstract

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outpatient cancer drug costs

Halbert

Zaher

Wade

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results were supported by a large study of castration nilutamide, 26 and the EORTC study 30853. 27 However, a number of other studies, notably the DAPROCA study, showed no advantage for combination therapy against surgical castration, nor did the international study of Zoladex against Zoladex ¯utamide. 28 A second study was carried out by the NCl including 1176 patients, where surgical castration placebo was compared with surgical castration ¯utamide.…”

Section: Maximal Androgen Blockade (Mab)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tailoring of hormonal therapy in prostate cancer

Newling

2000

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…22,24,30 The Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG-INT 0036) compared leuprolide plus¯utamide with leuprolide plus placebo. 30 The EORTC-30853 study compared goserelin acetate plus¯utamide with bilateral orchiectomy.…”

Section: Trials Showing An Advantage For Mabmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…30 The EORTC-30853 study compared goserelin acetate plus¯utamide with bilateral orchiectomy. 22 The third study by the Anandron Study Group compared bilateral orchiectomy plus nilutamide with bilateral orchiectomy. 24 In all three studies, median time to progression and median time of overall survival were longer in the MAB arm (Table 2).…”

Section: Trials Showing An Advantage For Mabmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximum androgen blockade: a case study report

Newling

2000

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maximal Androgen Blockade: Final Analysis of EORTC Phase III Trial 30853

Cited by 150 publications

References 8 publications

Outpatient cancer drug costs

Outpatient cancer drug costs

Tailoring of hormonal therapy in prostate cancer

Maximum androgen blockade: a case study report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About