Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22412884›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Economic evaluation of first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a health resource-limited setting.

Bin Wu, Baijun Dong, Yuejuan Xu, Qiang Zhang, Jinfang Shen, Huafeng Chen, Wei Xue

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bin WuClinical Outcomes and Economics Group, Department of pharmacy, Renji Hospital, affiliated with the School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Baijun Dong
Yuejuan Xu
Qiang Zhang
Jinfang Shen
Huafeng Chen
Wei Xue
Renji Hospital · CNShanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo estimate, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the economic outcomes of five different first-line strategies among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS AND

findingsA decision-analytic model was developed to simulate the lifetime disease course associated with renal cell carcinoma. The health and economic outcomes of five first-line strategies (interferon-alfa, interleukin-2, interleukin-2 plus interferon-alfa, sunitinib and bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa) were estimated and assessed by indirect comparison. The clinical and utility data were taken from published studies. The cost data were estimated from local charge data and current Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty regarding the results. The impact of the sunitinib patient assistant program (SPAP) was evaluated via scenario analysis. The base-case analysis showed that the sunitinib strategy yielded the maximum health benefits: 2.71 life years and 1.40 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). The marginal cost-effectiveness (cost per additional QALY) gained via the sunitinib strategy compared with the conventional strategy was $220,384 (without SPAP, interleukin-2 plus interferon-alfa and bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa were dominated) and $16,993 (with SPAP, interferon-alfa, interleukin-2 plus interferon-alfa and bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa were dominated). In general, the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the sunitinib strategy with SPAP was the most cost-effective approach when the willingness-to-pay threshold was over $16,000.

conclusionsOur analysis suggests that traditional cytokine therapy is the cost-effective option in the Chinese healthcare setting. In some relatively developed regions, sunitinib with SPAP may be a favorable cost-effective alternative for mRCC.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Renal CellChinaCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth ResourcesHumansKidney NeoplasmsModels, Economic

Identifiers

PMID22412884
PMCPMC3297611
OpenAlexW1977373411

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.