Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27637757›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2017

Economic Evaluations of First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Pancreatic Cancer: A Critical Review.

Mahdi Gharaibeh, J Lyle Bootman, Ali McBride, Jennifer Martin, Ivo Abraham

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

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

  1. Article
  2. Polymer nanoparticle-assisted chemotherapy of pancreatic cancer.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  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

5 authors.

Mahdi GharaibehCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
J Lyle BootmanCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Ali McBrideCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Jennifer MartinArizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Ivo AbrahamCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Drachman Hall B-306, 1295 N. Martin Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. abraham@pharmacy.arizona.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2417-2862

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effect sizes of efficacy of first-line treatments for (metastatic) pancreas cancer are constrained, underscoring the need for evaluations of the efficacy-to-cost relationship. We critically review economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer since the 1997 introduction of gemcitabine. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE (1997-2015), and the websites of health technology assessment agencies. Two authors independently reviewed economic studies for eligibility in this review; evaluated peer-reviewed, journal-published studies in terms of the Drummond Checklist; and critiqued the technical and scientific merit of all studies. Sixteen pharmacoeconomic evaluations were included: ten published in nine peer-reviewed journals and six on three websites. Six were on single-agent therapies and ten on combination therapies. Analyses conducted included cost-effectiveness (three studies), cost-utility (one study), or combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (12 studies). Studies diverged in results, mainly because of different assumptions, methods, inputs, and country-specific guidelines. The two most recent regimens, nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and the combination of fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), were evaluated in an indirect comparison, yielding a statistically similar benefit in overall survival but superior progression-free survival for FOLFIRINOX. NAB-P + GEM showed greater economic benefit over FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, the divergence in results observed across studies is attributable to economic drivers that are specific to countries and their healthcare (financing) systems. No recommendations regarding the relative economic benefit of treatment regimens, general or country-specific, are made as the purpose of pharmacoeconomic analysis is to inform policy decision-making and clinical practice, not set policy or define clinical practice.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease-Free SurvivalEconomics, PharmaceuticalHumansPancreatic NeoplasmsResearch DesignSurvival RateAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

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.