Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25788034›Full record

Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2015

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine, S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study.

Jing Zhou, Rongce Zhao, Feng Wen, Pengfei Zhang, Ruilei Tang, Zedong Du, Xiaofeng He, Jian Zhang, Qiu Li

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2015. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based combination therapyJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jing ZhouDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China.
Rongce Zhao
Feng Wen
Pengfei Zhang
Ruilei Tang
Zedong Du
Xiaofeng He
Jian Zhang
Qiu Li
Sichuan University · CNState Key Laboratory of BiotherapyHuaian First People’s Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gemcitabine (GEM) alone, S-1 alone and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) have shown a marginal clinical benefit for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. However, there is no clearly defined optimal cost-effectiveness treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of GEM alone, S-1 alone and GS for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study for public payers. A decision model compared GEM alone, S-1 alone and GS. Primary base case data were identified using the GEST study and the literatures. Costs were estimated from West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs). Sensitive analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. The base case analysis showed that the GEM cost $21,912 and yielded survival of 6.93 QALMs, S-1 cost $19,371 and yielded survival of 7.90 QALMs and GS cost $22,943 and yielded survival of 7.46 QALMs in the entire treatment. The one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER of S-1 was driven mostly by the S-1 group utility score of stable state compared with GEM, and the GEM group utility score of progressed state played a key role on the ICER of GS compared with GEM. S-1 represents an attractive cost-effective treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, given the favorable cost per QALM and improvement in clinical efficacy, especially the limited available treatment options.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDeoxycytidineDrug CombinationsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGemcitabineHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOxonic AcidDeoxycytidineDrug CombinationsGemcitabineOxonic AcidS 1 (combination)Tegafur

Identifiers

PMID25788034
OpenAlexW2073018298

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.