Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25085899›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2014

Survival and lifetime costs associated with first-line bevacizumab use in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Veena Shankaran, David Mummy, Lisel Koepl, Aasthaa Bansal, Dana K Mirick, Elaine Yu, Rob Morlock, Sarika Ogale, Scott D Ramsey

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Update on Anti-Angiogenesis Therapy in Colorectal Cancer.Current colorectal cancer reports · 2015
    Article
  4. Review
  5. First- and second-line bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2015
    Article
  6. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Veena ShankaranDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA vshank@uw.edu.
David MummyDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Lisel KoeplDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Aasthaa BansalDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Dana K MirickDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Elaine YuDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Rob MorlockDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Sarika OgaleDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Scott D RamseyDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Outcomes, Research, and Policy Program School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA.
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe objective of this study was to investigate clinical effectiveness and incremental lifetime costs associated with first-line bevacizumab in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

methodsPatients diagnosed with mCRC in 2004-2007 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and stratified by first-line treatment (no chemotherapy [CTx], CTx alone, CTx plus bevacizumab). The impact of first-line bevacizumab on survival was investigated using a propensity score adjusted multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Mean lifetime costs for each cohort were calculated using Medicare claims for all services rendered between diagnosis and end of follow-up, adjusting for death and censoring.

resultsA total of 4,414 patients (mean age: 77.3 years) were identified, of whom 15% received first-line bevacizumab. Among first-line-treated patients, bevacizumab receipt was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.97]; p = .013), and this benefit was limited to patients who received >1 month of bevacizumab therapy. Median and mean survival were greatest in patients treated with CTx plus bevacizumab relative to CTx alone (CTx plus bevacizumab median 19.4 months [mean 28.0 months] vs. CTx alone median 15.1 months [mean 22.9 months]; p < .001), as were mean lifetime costs (mean per patient cost $143,284 vs. $111,280). Compared with CTx alone, CTx plus bevacizumab was associated with a 5.1-month increase in mean survival and a $32,004 increase in mean lifetime treatment costs, with an incremental cost of $75,303 per life-year gained.

conclusionBevacizumab use is associated with longer survival than CTx alone in older patients treated in real-world clinical settings, at an incremental cost of $75,303 per life-year gained.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleProportional Hazards ModelsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBevacizumabBevacizumabClinical effectivenessElderlyLifetime costsMetastatic colorectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID25085899
PMCPMC4122470
OpenAlexW2108110723

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.