Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19142182›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009

Economic evaluation of chemoprevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen and raloxifene among high-risk women in Japan.

M Kondo, S-L Hoshi, M Toi

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M KondoDepartment of Health Care Policy and Management, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. mkondo@md.tsukuba.ac.jp
S-L Hoshi
M Toi
University of Tsukuba · JPKyoto University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Raloxifene was approved for chemoprevention against breast cancer among high-risk women in addition to tamoxifen by the US Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to evaluate cost-effectiveness of these agents under Japan's health system. A cost-effectiveness analysis with Markov model consisting of eight health states such as healthy, invasive breast cancer, and endometrial cancer is carried out. The model incorporated the findings of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 and P-2 trial, and key costs obtained from health insurance claim reviews. Favourable results, that is cost saving or cost-effective, are found by both tamoxifen and raloxifene for the introduction of chemoprevention among extremely high-risk women such as having a history of atypical hyperplasia, a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or a 5-year predicted breast cancer risk of > or =5.01% starting at younger age, whereas unfavourable results, that is 'cost more and gain less' or cost-ineffective, are found for women with a 5-year predicted breast cancer risk of < or =5.00%. Therapeutic policy switch from tamoxifen to raloxifene among postmenopausal women are implied cost-effective. Findings suggest that introduction of chemoprevention targeting extremely high-risk women in Japan can be justifiable as an efficient use of finite health-care resources, possibly contributing to cost containment.

Indexed as

AdultAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma in SituCarcinoma, LobularCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansJapanMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessPostmenopauseRaloxifene HydrochlorideRisk FactorsTamoxifenRaloxifene HydrochlorideTamoxifen

Identifiers

PMID19142182
PMCPMC2634700
OpenAlexW2008745182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.