ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2016
Comparison of cost-effectiveness of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet for treating advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib versus Other Third-Line Treatments for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2024Review
- Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil against nivolumab for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in Japan.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Article
- Real-World Adherence in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Trifluridine plus Tipiracil or Regorafenib.The oncologist · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimens are standard third-line or later treatments for advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer with no significant difference in efficacy. The present study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of using regorafenib vs. the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet. The expected cost was calculated based on data from patients with advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer who were treated with regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet. The median survival time (MST) from the CORRECT and the RECOURSE study was used to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated from the expected cost and MST for the two regimens. The expected cost per patient for the regorafenib and the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimen was ¥705,330.3 and ¥371,198.7, respectively, and the cost-effectiveness ratio was ¥110,207.9/MST and ¥52,281.5/MST, respectively. In conclusion, the findings of the present study demonstrated that the trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet regimen is more cost-effective compared with the regorafenib regimen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.