Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19068454›Full record

Trial reportClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2008

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sunitinib in patients with metastatic and/or unresectable gastrointestinal stroma tumours (GIST) after progression or intolerance with imatinib.

Luis Paz-Ares, Xavier García del Muro, Enrique Grande, Paloma González, M Brosa, Silvia Díaz

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Analysis of economic evaluations of pharmacological cancer treatments in Spain between 1990 and 2010.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. The use of cost per life year gained as a measurement of cost-effectiveness in Spain: a systematic review of recent publications.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib in second-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2015
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Luis Paz-AresOncology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
Xavier García del Muro
Enrique Grande
Paloma González
M Brosa
Silvia Díaz
Pfizer (United States) · USInstitut Català d'Ornitologia · ESOblikue Consulting (Spain) · ESResearch Institute Hospital 12 de Octubre · ES

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSunitinib is a multiselective oral inhibitor of several tyrosine-kinase receptors that has demonstrated its efficacy in patients with metastatic and/or unresectable gastrointestinal stroma tumours (GIST) who were resistant to or intolerant to previous treatment with imatinib. The purpose of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib vs. best supportive care (BSC) in GIST as a second- line treatment, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. MATERIALS AND

methodsA Markov model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks "on" and 2 weeks "off") vs. BSC in GIST as a second-line treatment. Transition probabilities between the three health states considered in the model (progression-free survival (PFS), progression and death) were obtained from a clinical trial [Demetri et al. (2006) Lancet 368:1329-1338]. Health resource data (drugs, medical visits, laboratory and radiology tests, palliative care and adverse events) were obtained from an expert panel. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

resultsProjected PFS years, life years (LY) and quality of life adjusted years (QALYs) were higher for sunitinib compared with BSC: 0.50 vs. 0.24, 1.59 vs. 0.88 and 1.00 vs. 0.55. Mean costs per patient were 23,259 euros with sunitinib and 1,622 euros with BSC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) obtained were: 4,090 euros/month PFS, 30,242 euros/LY and 49,090 euros/QALY gained. The most influential variables for the results were the efficacy and unit cost of sunitinib.

conclusionsAccording to the efficiency thresholds for oncology patients in developed countries, sunitinib is considered cost-effective vs. BSC with acceptable costs per LY and QALY gained.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAntineoplastic AgentsBenzamidesChemotherapy, AdjuvantCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ProgressionDouble-Blind MethodDrug Resistance, NeoplasmGastrointestinal Stromal TumorsHealth ResourcesHumansImatinib MesylateIndolesMarkov ChainsModels, EconometricNeoplasm MetastasisAntineoplastic AgentsBenzamidesImatinib MesylateIndolesPiperazinesPlacebosPyrimidinesPyrrolesSunitinib

Identifiers

PMID19068454
OpenAlexW2142990859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.