ArticlePharmacoEconomics2004
From randomised clinical trials to clinical practice : a pragmatic cost-effectiveness analysis of Paclitaxel in first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost Effectiveness of Chemotherapeutic Agents and Targeted Biologics in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Pooled it
- Financial Toxicity Encountered in Therapeutic Radiopharmaceutical Clinical Development for Ovarian Cancer.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPaclitaxel plus cisplatin is considered to be the standard first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. Previous to this study, economic data on this combination resulted from randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes associated with paclitaxel-cisplatin (PC) and cyclophosphamide-cisplatin (CC) regimens using a pragmatic perspective based on daily clinical practice in a French university hospital.
methodA retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis, from the hospital-payer perspective, was carried out as a before-after case study in fifty-nine consecutive women with verified International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II, III or IV ovarian cancer treated between 1995 and 2000. Median overall survival (OS) was used as the primary endpoint. The quality-adjusted time was assessed by the quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) method. Direct medical costs were collected for each patient. Monetary values for French prices in the year 2000 were used and converted to US dollars using an exchange rate of USD 1 = 7 French francs. Several univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out varying unit costs, medical practices and administration of paclitaxel.
resultsThe incremental cost of the PC regimen was USD 10,716 per patient. OS and quality-adjusted time were improved by 10.8 and 9.3 months with the PC regimen. The cost per life-year gained and per added QALY were USD 11,907 and USD 13,827, respectively. The robustness of the results was confirmed in sensitivity analyses.
conclusionOur study suggests that PC may be a cost-effective regimen for advanced ovarian cancer in a French university hospital setting. We reported higher incremental costs and lower clinical benefits than RCT-based findings, suggesting that RCT-based findings were clearly balanced by our pragmatic approach based on clinical practices. Observational studies can provide complementary and balanced data for decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.