Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24064969›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013

Treatment costs associated with interventional cancer clinical trials conducted at a single UK institution over 2 years (2009-2010).

E Liniker, M Harrison, J M J Weaver, N Agrawal, A Chhabra, V Kingshott, S Bailey, T G G Eisen, P G Corrie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Optimising oncology drug expenditure in Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines.BMC health services research · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Responsibility for costs associated with clinical trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014
    Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

E LinikerCambridge Cancer Trials Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
M Harrison
J M J Weaver
N Agrawal
A Chhabra
V Kingshott
S Bailey
T G G Eisen
P G Corrie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe conduct of clinical trials should be an integral part of routine patient care. Treating patients in trials incurs additional costs over and above standard of care (SOC), but the extent of the cost burden is not known. We undertook a retrospective cost attribution analysis to quantitate the treatment costs associated with cancer clinical trial protocols conducted over a 2 year period.

methodsAll patients entered into oncology (non-haematology) clinical trials involving investigational medicinal products in 2009 and 2010 in a single UK institution were identified. The trial protocols on which they were treated were analysed to identify the treatment costs for the experimental arm(s) of the trial and the equivalent SOC had the patient not been entered in the trial. The treatment cost difference was calculated by subtracting the experimental treatment cost from SOC cost. For randomised trials, an average treatment cost was estimated by taking into account the number of arms and randomisation ratio. An estimate of the annual treatment costs was calculated.

resultsA total of 357 adult oncology patients were treated on 53 different trial protocols: 40 phase III, 2 randomised II/III and 11 phase II design. A total of 27 trials were academic, non-commercial sponsored trials and 26 were commercial sponsored trials. When compared with SOC, the average treatment cost per patient was an excess of £431 for a non-commercial trial (range £6393 excess to £6005 saving) and a saving of £9294 for a commercial trial (range £0 to £71,480). There was an overall treatment cost saving of £388,719 in 2009 and £496,556 in 2010, largely attributable to pharmaceutical company provision of free drug supplies.

conclusionOn an average, non-commercial trial protocols were associated with a small per patient excess treatment cost, whereas commercial trials were associated with a substantially higher cost saving. Taking into account the total number of patients recruited annually, treatment of patients on clinical trial protocols was associated with considerable cost savings across both the non-commercial and commercial portfolio.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHealth Care CostsHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID24064969
PMCPMC3798949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.