Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25548497›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2014

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colon cancer treatments from MOSIAC and No. 16968 trials.

Feng Wen, Ke Yao, Ze-Dong Du, Xiao-Feng He, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Feng WenFeng Wen, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Ke YaoFeng Wen, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Ze-Dong DuFeng Wen, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Xiao-Feng HeFeng Wen, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Peng-Fei ZhangFeng Wen, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Rui-Lei TangFeng Wen, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Qiu LiFeng Wen, Peng-Fei Zhang, Rui-Lei Tang, Qiu Li, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare XELOX and FOLFOX4 as colon cancer adjuvant chemotherapy based on MOSAIC and No. 16968 trails from Chinese cost-effectiveness perspective.

methodsA decision-analytic Markov model was developed to compare the FOLFOX4 and XELOX regimens based MOSAIC and No. 16968 trial. Five states were included in our Markov model: well (state 1), minor toxicity (state 2), major toxicity (state 3), quitting adjuvant chemotherapy (state 4), and death due to adjuvant chemotherapy (state 5). Transitions among the 5 states were assumed to be Markovian. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. The utility data were taken from published studies. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty factors in this cost-effectiveness analysis.

resultsTotal direct costs of FOLFOX4 and XELOX per patient were $19884.96 ± 4280.30 and $18113.25 ± 3122.20, respectively. The total fees related to adverse events per patient during the entire treatment were $204.75 ± 16.80 for the XELOX group, and $873.72 ± 27.60 for the FOLFOX4 group, and the costs for travel and absenteeism per patient were $18495.00 for the XELOX group and $21,352.68 for the FOLFOX4 group. The base-case analysis showed that FOLFOX4 was estimated to produce an additional 0.06 in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $3950.47 when compared to the XELOX regimen over the model time horizon. The cost per QALY gained was $8047.30 in the XELOX group, which was $900.98 less than in the FOLFOX4 group ($8948.28). The one way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the utility for the well state and minor toxicity state greatly influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FOLFOX4.

conclusionIn term of cost-comparison, XELOX is expected to dominate FOLFOX4 regimes; Therefore, XELOX provides a more cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer patients in China.

Indexed as

Drug CostsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCapecitabineChemotherapy, AdjuvantChinaClinical Trials as TopicColonic NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisDeoxycytidineFemaleFluorouracilHumansLeucovorinMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedCapecitabineDeoxycytidineFluorouracilLeucovorinOrganoplatinum CompoundsOxaliplatinOxaloacetatesAdjuvant chemotherapyColon cancerCost-effectivenessFOLFOXXELOX

Identifiers

PMID25548497
PMCPMC4273149

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.