Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27843573›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2016

Cost-minimization analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens given to patients with colorectal cancer in Japan.

Kosuke Takata, Ken-Ichi Fujita, Yutaro Kubota, Hiroo Ishida, Wataru Ichikawa, Ken Shimada, Takashi Sekikawa, Iori Taki-Takemoto, Daisuke Kamei, Shinichi Iwai and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kosuke TakataDepartment of Healthcare and Regulatory Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Showa University, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Ken-Ichi FujitaInstitute of Molecular Oncology, Showa University, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Yutaro KubotaDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Showa University, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Hiroo IshidaDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Showa University, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Wataru IchikawaDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, 1-30 Fujigaoka, Aoba-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 227-8501 Japan.
Ken ShimadaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Showa University Koto Toyosu Hospital, 5-1-38 Toyosu, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8577 Japan.
Takashi SekikawaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Showa University Yokohama Northern Hospital, 35-1 Chigasakichuo, Tsuzuki-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 224-8503 Japan ; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, 1-30 Fujigaoka, Aoba-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 227-8501 Japan.
Iori Taki-TakemotoDepartment of Healthcare and Regulatory Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Showa University, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Daisuke KameiDepartment of Healthcare and Regulatory Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Showa University, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Shinichi IwaiDepartment of Healthcare and Regulatory Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Showa University, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Yasutsuna SasakiInstitute of Molecular Oncology, Showa University, 1-5-8, Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan ; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Showa University, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 142-8555 Japan.
Showa University · JPShowa University Fujigaoka Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsideration of medical costs as well as effectiveness and adverse events is rapidly been becoming an important factor in the selection of chemotherapy regimens. However, practical data on the costs of chemotherapy are scarce. We clinically estimated the medical costs of 6 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer on the basis of clinical and cost-related data and compared their cost-effectiveness by cost-minimization analyses.

methodsAll patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer between April 2012 and May 2015 at four hospitals affiliated with Showa University were studied retrospectively. Clinical and cost data related to adjuvant chemotherapy were collected from medical records and medical fee receipt data, respectively. Six adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were studied: capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOX); 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), ℓ-leucovorin (LV), and oxaliplatin (modified FOLFOX6 [mFOLFOX6]); 5-FU and LV (5-FU/LV); tegafur and uracil (UFT), and LV (UFT/LV); capecitabine; and tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil (S-1). The regimens were divided into 2 groups according to whether or not they contained oxaliplatin because of the difference in effectiveness. Cost-minimization analyses, where relative costs of regimens showing equivalent effectiveness were simply compared, were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the regimens in each group.

resultsA total of 154 patients with colorectal cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy during the study period. Fifty-seven patients were treated with CapeOX, 10 with mFOLFOX6, 38 with UFT/LV, 20 with capecitabine, and 29 with S-1. No patient received 5-FU/LV. The total costs of oxaliplatin-containing regimens were significantly higher than those of oxaliplatin non-containing regimens. The high cost of oxaliplatin, but not the costs of drugs or various tests for the treatment of adverse events, was the primary reason for the higher costs of the oxaliplatin-containing regimens. The cost-effectiveness of the oxaliplatin-containing regimens CapeOX and mFOLFOX6 were comparable. Among the oxaliplatin non-containing regimens, the cost-effectiveness of S-1 and capecitabine was superior to that of UFT/LV.

conclusionThus, we provided the cost-effectiveness data of 5 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer based on practical clinical and cost data from Japanese patients. The results can be included as a factor in regimen selection because these results would represent the real world.

trial registrationThis study is a retrospective observational study and does not include any health care interventions. Therefore, we did not register the protocol of this study.

Indexed as

Adjuvant chemotherapyColorectal cancerCost-effectivenessCost-minimization analysisRegimen selection

Identifiers

PMID27843573
PMCPMC5103437
OpenAlexW2552624487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.