Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29016627›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with non-curative or palliative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world setting.

Hla-Hla Thein, Yao Qiao, Ahmad Zaheen, Nathaniel Jembere, Gonzalo Sapisochin, Kelvin K W Chan, Eric M Yoshida, Craig C Earle

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Hla-Hla TheinDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4950-187X
Yao QiaoDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ahmad ZaheenDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nathaniel JembereDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gonzalo SapisochinMulti-Organ Transplant, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kelvin K W ChanDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eric M YoshidaUniversity of British Columbia, Division of Gastroenterology, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Craig C EarleInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAOntario Institute for Cancer Research · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presentation is heterogeneous necessitating a variety of therapeutic interventions with varying efficacies and associated prognoses. Poor prognostic patients often undergo non-curative palliative interventions including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), sorafenib, chemotherapy, or purely supportive care. The decision to pursue one of many palliative interventions for HCC is complex and an economic evaluation comparing these interventions has not been done. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of non-curative palliative treatment strategies such as TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib alone, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy compared with no treatment or best supportive care (BSC) among patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2010 in a Canadian setting. Using person-level data, we estimated effectiveness in life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) along with total health care costs (2013 US dollars) from the health care payer's perspective (3% annual discount). A net benefit regression approach accounting for baseline covariates with propensity score adjustment was used to calculate incremental net benefit to generate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and uncertainty measures. Among 1,172 identified patients diagnosed with HCC, 4.5%, 7.9%, and 5.6%, received TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, sorafenib, and non-sorafenib chemotherapy clone, respectively. Compared with no treatment or BSC (81.9%), ICER estimates for TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib was $6,665/QALY (additional QALY: 0.47, additional cost: $3,120; 95% CI: -$18,800-$34,500/QALY). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that if the relevant threshold was $50,000/QALY, TACE alone or TACE+sorafenib, non-sorafenib chemotherapy, and sorafenib alone, would have a cost-effectiveness probability of 99.7%, 46.6%, and 5.5%, respectively. Covariates associated with the incremental net benefit of treatments are age, sex, comorbidity, and cancer stage. Findings suggest that TACE with or without sorafenib is currently the most cost-effective active non-curative palliative treatment approach to HCC. Further research into new combination treatment strategies that afford the best tumor response is needed.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, HepatocellularChemoembolization, TherapeuticCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNiacinamidePalliative CarePhenylurea CompoundsNiacinamidePhenylurea CompoundsSorafenib

Identifiers

PMID29016627
PMCPMC5634563
OpenAlexW2760980960

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.