OBJECTIVES: Since May 2001, vinorelbine has been available to be administered in oral form at home in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Its efficacy is similar to that of IV vinorelbine, gastro-intestinal toxicity is more frequent. The periodicity of the treatment follow up in a hospital environment is poorly defined. The aim of this study is to establish the regimen, which minimises costs whilst ensuring patient safety. METHODS: A model was constructed in order to follow the repercussions of attending hospital every 3, 6, or 9 weeks compared to purely outpatient, weekly management. The corresponding costs were compared to those of conventional treatments used in the indication: gemcitabine, docetaxel and paclitaxel. Costs were estimated from the society perspective. For hospital courses, the DRG costs were adjusted by replacing the drugs component by the actual cost of the substances. For the oral form, primary care costs are allocated values using the price of oral form and the primary care visit or an hospital specialist consultation. RESULTS: For equivalent therapeutic efficacy, oral vinorelbine appears to be the least expensive substance: its annual follow up costs per patient using specialised consultations every 3, 6, and 9 weeks were €6360, €6190, and €5940. The least expensive regimen was the regimen involving entirely home management following initial day hospitalisation: €5940. IV cytotoxic agents administered in hospital: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel and paclitaxel had annual follow up costs of 6970, €7400, €8320, and €9440 respectively. CONCLUSION: How can patient safety and the will to keep a patient at home at the end of their life be reconciled? An economic analysis can quantify the financial repercussions of the more or less extensive interpretations which clinicians place on the principle of precaution.