Trial reportPloS one2018
Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Pharmacotherapy for older adults with cancer: a digest of the Japanese clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition)-gastrointestinal cancers.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in HER2-positive gastric cancer treatment in Iran: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Health economics review · 2024Article
- Economic Evaluation of Adding Daratumumab to Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Cancerous inhibitor of protein phosphatase 2A enhances chemoresistance of gastric cancer cells to oxaliplatin.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Identification of biomarkers predicting the chemotherapeutic outcomes of capecitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with gastric cancer.Oncology letters · 2020Article
- Economic impacts of care by high-volume providers for non-curative esophagogastric cancer: a population-based analysis.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as a second-line therapy for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer in China.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no single standard chemotherapy regimen for elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). A phase III trial has confirmed that both capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin are well tolerated for elderly patients with AGC, but their economic influence in China is unknown.
objectiveThe purpose of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to estimate the effects of capecitabine monotherapy and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in elderly patients with AGC on health and economic outcomes in China.
methodsWe created a Markov model based on data from a Korean clinical phase III trial to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of elderly patients in the capecitabine monotherapy (X) group and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) group. The costs were obtained from published reports and the local health system. The utilities were assumed on the basis of the published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (Monte Carlo simulations) were performed.
resultsIn the cost-effectiveness analysis, X had a lower total cost ($45,731.68) and cost-effectiveness ratio ($65,918.93/QALY). The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the most influential parameter was the risk of requiring second-line chemotherapy in XELOX group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted that the X regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time, given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $26,598.
conclusionsOur findings show that the XELOX regimen is less cost-effective compared to the X regimen for elderly patients with AGC in China from a Chinese healthcare perspective.
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.