Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29098555›Full record

Trial reportClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2018

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer based on JCOG0605 trial.

K Zhou, F Wen, P Zhang, J Zhou, H Zheng, L Sun, Q Li

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2018. 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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

7 authors.

K ZhouState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
F WenState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
P ZhangState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
J ZhouState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
H ZhengDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
L SunWest China Bio-Medical Big Data Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 331221241@qq.com.
Q LiState Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. fbqiu9@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5158-3838

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSince combined strategy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan has shown the superiority to topotecan alone as second-line chemotherapy in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer, this study aimed to compare these two treatments based on JCOG0605 trail from Chinese cost-effectiveness perspective.

methodsBasic medical information was derived from a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial (JCOG0605). A Markov model including three health states: progression-free state, progressive disease (PD), and death, was developed to simulate the process of sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Cost was calculated from the perspective of Chinese society. Sensitivity analyses were applied to explore the impact of essential variables.

resultsTreatment with combination chemotherapy was estimated to increase costs by $6947.32 compared with topotecan alone, with a gain of 0.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Thus, the incremental cost-effective ratio was $26720.46/QALY for combination treatment versus monotherapy, which was beyond the threshold of 3 × the per capita GDP of China, $24423.00. The costs of PD state were the most influential factors to the model.

conclusionThe combination chemotherapy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan was not a cost-effectiveness choice for patients with sensitive relapsed SCLC in China from the cost-effectiveness perspective.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCamptothecinCisplatinEtoposideFollow-Up StudiesHumansIrinotecanLung NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSmall Cell Lung CarcinomaSurvival RateTopotecanCamptothecinCisplatinEtoposideIrinotecanTopotecanCisplatin plus etoposide plus irinotecanCost-effectivenessSecond-line chemotherapySensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancerTopotecan

Identifiers

PMID29098555

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.