Search

Background: Few studies have looked at lung cancer in prisoners, despite this population is possibly at increased risk of malignancy. In a previous study, we found an early onset of lung cancer in prisoners. Thus, the present CARCAN study was aimed at assessing the epidemiological characteristics, management, prognosis, and incidence of lung cancer in prisoners compared to a sample of non-prisoner patients., Method: We performed a multi-center observational case-control study. Cases were prisoners diagnosed with lung cancer from 2005 to 2013. Controls were non-prisoner lung cancer patients selected from hospital databases and randomly matched to cases (targeted case-control ratio: 1:3). Incidence rates in both groups were calculated using national statistics., Results: Seventy-two cases and 170 controls met inclusion criteria. Cases were mainly men (99%). Mean age at diagnosis was 52.9 (± 11.0) in cases and 64.3 (± 10.1) in controls (p < 0.0001). More case patients were current smokers compared to control patients (83% vs 53%; p < 0.0001). We found no significant differences between the two groups as concerns histologic types, TNM stages at diagnosis, initially-employed treatments, times to management or survival. Incidence rates (2008-2012) in male prisoners were higher than those in the general population in all concerned age groups., Conclusion: There is a shift of lung cancer toward young people in prisons. However, the presentation, management, and prognosis of lung cancer are similar between prisoners and non-prisoners. These finding could justify a specific screening policy for the incarcerated populations.

Objective: To explain the help of economic analyses in the understanding of lung cancer (LC) management with a description of the quality of selected papers., Methods: In the first part, quality criteria of economic analyses are depicted with the key words for the literature selection., Results: The global costs of LC through literature review are depicted; then, in a second part, the costs of each stage of the disease. Finally, costs of chemotherapeutic drugs and target molecules are also discussed., Conclusion: Economic analyses are unavoidable to assess the burden of the disease but also the cost of each management strategy for LC.

Cost of illness (COI) studies estimate the overall economic burden of a specific disease, rather than simply treatment-related costs. While having been criticised for not allowing resource prioritisation, COI studies can provide useful guidance, so long as they adhere to accepted methodology. The aim of this review is to analyse the methods used to evaluate the cost of lung cancer. Because of the increasing incidence and high direct and indirect costs of lung cancer, it is an important disease in terms of economic implications, and therefore provides a relevant example with which to review COI study methodologies. First, the key points of the methodology relating to COI studies were identified. COI studies relating to lung cancer were then reviewed, focussing on an analysis of the different methods used and an identification of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The COI studies that were analysed confirmed that lung cancer is a costly illness, and that hospitalisation and treatments account for a large part of direct costs, while indirect costs represent a large part of the total costs. The review also showed that COI studies adopted significantly different approaches to estimate the costs of lung cancer, reflecting a lack of consensus on the methodology of COI studies in this area. Hence, to increase the credibility of COI studies, closer agreement among researchers on methodological principles would be desirable.

Introduction: To evaluate the average cost of therapeutic strategies for the management of lung cancer in relation to histological type and diagnostic staging and of the individual components of the management strategy., Methods: Samples were taken between 1 September 1998 and 30 June 1999 from centres with sufficient numbers of lung cancer (LC) cases. All events over an 18 Month period were collected from a retrospective analysis of the records. A Markov model was constructed based on decision branches for localised and diffuse small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several components of management were identified: first line treatment, second line treatment, observation, terminal care and death., Results: The average cost of LC was 22,006 Euro (10,631-36,296) for one year and 25,643 Euro (10,631-46,191) for two years. For SCLC the average annual costs were 22,420 Euro for diffuse disease and 27,098 for localised disease. For NSCLC the totals ranged from 19,543 Euro for inoperable stage I and II tumours to 39,424 for operable tumours. The cost for stage IV tumours was 24,383 Euro. The cost components over two Years varied according to the tumour type. The cost of diagnosis ranged from 6-14%, the cost of management and of terminal care from 33-45% of the total. Analyses of sensitivity confirmed that whatever the histological type or diagnostic staging the percentage of patients initially treated actively (that is to say not by palliative care) had the greatest effect on the total cost, greater than the costs of terminal care and of two courses of chemotherapy., Conclusions: This model has allowed for the first time the calculation of the contributions of the different therapeutic components to the total cost of the management of lung cancer in France. In the future it will allow analysis of the economic impact of new methods of treatment.

To evaluate, according to the histologic type and initial stage, the mean cost (MC) of managing patients with lung cancer and the costs of the different management phases. A Markov approach was used to model these costs, based on the management of a representative nation-wide sample of 428 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The 18-month MC ranged from US$ 20 691 (95% CI: 5777-50 380 for diffuse non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to US$ 31 833 (95% CI: 15 866-64 455) for localised small-cell lung cancer (SCLC); first-line treatment costs ranged from 33.8% of MC for medically inoperable localised NSCLC to 74.6% for diffuse SCLC; second- or third-line treatment costs ranged from 7.8% of MC for surgically treated localised NSCLC to 32% for locally advanced NSCLC; and the cost of palliative care ranged from 9.1% of MC for locally advanced NSCLC to 39.9% for medically inoperable localised NSCLC. The cost of first-line chemotherapy and the percentage of actively treated patients impacted more on MC than did the cost of second- or third-line chemotherapy regimens or the cost of palliative care. In conclusion, this model provides a robust economic analysis of the cost of lung cancer management, and will be useful for assessing the economic consequences of future changes in patient management.

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) has been recently redefined by the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification but the appropriate treatment remains unclear. We reviewed 18 consecutive resected cases of LCNEC. Two pathologists assessed diagnosis by applying rigorously the last WHO criteria. We reported the pathological features and the clinical outcome of this particular tumour. All patients were men with a median age of 63 years. Clinicopathologic stages corresponded to stage I (n = 8), II (n = 8) and IIIA (n = 2). All patients were treated as non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and underwent surgery without any adjuvant treatment except four post-operative radiotherapy for N2 or T3 disease. The evolution was pejorative for 14 patients: one patient died of post-operative complications and 13 patients relapsed with distant metastases that occurred in 10 cases within 6 months after surgery. One-year survival rate was 27% and survival rate at the end of follow-up was 22%, which were both less than expected for stage-comparable NSCLC. Survival was neither influenced by lymph node status nor by pathological or molecular findings. Among the 10 evaluable patients with metastatic disease that received palliative platin-etoposide chemotherapy only two had partial tumour regressions (20%). Our study suggests that applying to LCNEC the NSCLC standard treatment lead to poor prognosis even in localised disease with a high incidence of early metastatic spread and a low response rate to chemotherapy. This way of relapse underlies the necessity of an efficient chemotherapy in order to improve survival., (Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.)

The economic assessment of treatments or medical strategies has been the subject of an increasing number of publications. The elevated costs and relative lack of efficacy of many treatments of chronic diseases such as lung cancer are an added impetus to such analyses. In the first part of this review, we summarise the theoretical basis of economic assessment, the tools available and the limitations of these methods. In the second part, we examine their application to the treatment of lung cancer. We discuss the evaluation of the cost of these cancers to society, economic assessment of new chemotherapeutic drugs, and the place of cost-effectiveness analysis in randomized trials. In the last part, we outline the interest and future of such considerations for clinicians. These methods, which provide complementary data for clinicians when making decisions on therapeutic options, will be adopted more widely in coming years.