Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28531203›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments.

S De Groot, H M Blommestein, W K Redekop, S Sleijfer, L A L M Kiemeney, E Oosterwijk, C A Uyl-de Groot

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Generic Model for Follicular Lymphoma: Predicting Cost, Life Expectancy, and Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year Using UK Population-Based Observational Data.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2018
    Observational
  4. 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.

S De GrootInstitute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
H M BlommesteinInstitute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
W K RedekopInstitute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
S SleijferDepartment of Medical Oncology and Cancer Genomics Netherlands, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
L A L M KiemeneyDepartment of Urology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
E OosterwijkDepartment of Urology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
C A Uyl-de GrootInstitute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRandomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs.

methodsAnalyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness.

resultsIn current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062-0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558-0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072-9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107-111,972 compared to current practice. DISCUSSION: Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Renal CellCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessFemaleHumansIndolesKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNetherlandsPyrrolesAntineoplastic AgentsIndolesPyrrolesSunitinib

Identifiers

PMID28531203
PMCPMC5439671

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.