ArticlePharmacoEconomics2018
Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in Europe: a Literature Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer in Japan.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of systematic chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a retrospective study using Japanese clinical data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line combination chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer and evidence-based pricing strategy of liposomal irinotecan in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Olaparib versus Placebo in Maintenance Treatment of Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis from the Canadian Public Payer's Perspective.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Treatment Costs and Social Burden of Pancreatic Cancer.Cancers · 2023Review
- Berberine Overcomes Gemcitabine-Associated Chemoresistance through Regulation of Rap1/PI3K-Akt Signaling in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- FolfirinoxTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Economic Evaluation for USA of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK.
objectiveUsing data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK.
methodsA three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results.
resultsFFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively.
conclusionsAt a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.
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.