The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Loveman, E; Jones, J; Hartwell, D; Bird, A; Harris, P; Welch, K; Clegg, A

doi:10.3310/hta14190

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Extended Research Article

Toolkit

View Award

Review found that, as a second-line treatment for patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer, topotecan is better than best supportive care in terms of improved survival. Treatment with oral topotecan may be cost-effective compared with best supportive care

E Loveman, J Jones, D Hartwell, A Bird, P Harris, K Welch & A Clegg.

Detailed Author information
Detailed Author information

E Loveman ^,^*, J Jones , D Hartwell , A Bird , P Harris , K Welch , A Clegg

Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), , UK
^* Corresponding author Email: emma.loveman@soton.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Report Content

Full Report
Abstract
Plain English Summary
Plain Language Summary
Scientific Summary

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors. Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Enter response message*

Name (title, first name, last name)*

Occupation / Job title*

Affiliation / Employer*

Email*

Other authors
For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests
We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, please provide details below

Enter response title*

Enter CAPTCHA What is one plus zero?*

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document