ArticleJournal of oncology practice2012
Proposal for a novel methodology to screen and score cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic disease: could cost weigh in evaluation?
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling the economic outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs: alternative model frameworks to capture clinical outcomes.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
- Treatments for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (mPC): A Review of Costing Evidence.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Review
- Linking the Price of Cancer Drug Treatments to Their Clinical Value.Clinical drug investigation · 2016Article
- What patients and providers should understand about economic evaluations in oncology.Journal of oncology practice · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRising costs of anticancer drugs prompt concerns about their approval, use, and affordability. A methodology was developed to evaluate cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsCosts of evaluated drugs were calculated by using average wholesale prices in US dollars. Ratios of cost to day of survival (cost/survival/d) were obtained by dividing costs of the entire treatment by reported median survival gain in days. A crude score of 100% was assigned to a cost/survival/d of less than $25, and 0% to a cost/survival/d of more than $750. A strategy was designed to correct for overall survival (OS) versus progression-free survival (PFS), adverse effects, and quality of life.
resultsIn breast cancer, PFS scores of bevacizumab varied between 0% and 60%. In NSCLC, OS scores of bevacizumab improved from 0% to 50%, as a result of histology, lower prices, and extended therapy. Gefitinib and erlotinib PFS scores were 80% and 70%, respectively. Correction for longer survival with erlotinib resulted in similar scores. In maintenance therapy, the OS score for pemetrexed was 70% as compared with 25% for erlotinib. Generic drugs scored 70% to 90%.
conclusionCost/survival varied with the number of cycles. In breast cancer, bevacizumab scores failed to justify its use. In NSCLC, 10 cycles of bevacizumab scored 0%. Scores improved with extended treatment and lower prices. Scores for gefitinib and erlotinib would support their approval. Erlotinib was preferred because of longer PFS. Results tended to endorse maintenance pemetrexed but not erlotinib. Generic drugs demonstrated high scores. Cost/survival could weigh in drug evaluation.
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.