Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29998007›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2018

Cost-utility analysis of 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine for adjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Kanyarat Katanyoo, Imjai Chitapanarux, Tharatorn Tungkasamit, Somvilai Chakrabandhu, Marisa Chongthanakorn, Rungarun Jiratrachu, Apiradee Kridakara, Kanokpis Townamchai, Pooriwat Muangwong, Chokaew Tovanabutra and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kanyarat KatanyooRadiation Oncology Unit, Department of Radiation, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Imjai ChitapanaruxDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Tharatorn TungkasamitDivision of Radiation Oncology, Udornthani Cancer Hospital, Udornthani, Thailand.
Somvilai ChakrabandhuDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Marisa ChongthanakornRadiation Oncology Unit, Department of Radiation, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rungarun JiratrachuDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkla, Thailand.
Apiradee KridakaraDepartment of Radiology, Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Thailand.
Kanokpis TownamchaiDepartment of Radiology, Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Thailand.
Pooriwat MuangwongDivision of Radiation Oncology, Lampang Cancer Hospital, Lampang, Thailand.
Chokaew TovanabutraDivision of Radiation Oncology, Chonburi Cancer Hospital, Chonburi, Thailand.
Kittisak ChomprasertDivision of Radiation Oncology, Chonburi Cancer Hospital, Chonburi, Thailand.
Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital · THChiang Mai University · THChonburi Cancer Hospital · THVajira Hospital · THLampang Cancer Hospital · THPrince of Songkla University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdjuvant chemotherapy at concurrent time with radiation therapy (RT) or at adjuvant time alone in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is used with several regimens. The cost-utility analysis was conducted to compare administration of two 5-FU regimens and capecitabine in the aspect of provider and societal viewpoint.

methodsStage II or III rectal cancer patients who received pre-operative or post-operative concurrent chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were compared by using decision tree model between (I) 5-FU plus leucovorin (LV) for 5 days per cycle (Mayo Clinic regimen); (II) 5-FU continuous infusion (CI) for 120-h per cycle (CAO/ARO/AIO-94 protocol); (III) standard regimen of capecitabine. All probability data were extracted from landmark study. Direct medical costs were the cost from database of Drug Medical Supply Information Center, while direct non-medical cost and utility were interviewed from stage II and III rectal cancer patients. The time horizon of this study was 5 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the final result in this study, which determined as the numerator of the difference of costs among three drug regimens, and the difference of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from each drug was the denominator.

results5-FU plus LV was the cheapest and least efficacy for adjuvant treatment of LARC in both provider and societal viewpoint. In provider viewpoint, the ICERs of 5-FU CI and capecitabine were 334,550 THB/QALY (US $9,840/QALY) and 189,935 THB/QALY (US $5,586/QALY), respectively, with the corresponding societal viewpoint of 264,447 THB/QALY (US $7,778/QALY) and 119,120 THB/QALY (US $3,504/QALY) when 5-FU plus LV was used as comparator. The most influential parameter for value of treatment was acquisition cost of capecitabine. At the willingness to pay for one QALY gained in Thailand (160,000 THB or US $4,706), 5-FU plus LV, 5-FU CI and capecitabine had probabilities of cost-effectiveness of 63%, 2% and 35%, respectively.

conclusionsCapecitabine was the most expensive regimen but produced the higher effectiveness than 5-FU plus LV and 5-FU CI. The most influential parameter in the model was acquisition cost of capecitabine.

Indexed as

adjuvant treatmentchemotherapyCost utilityrectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID29998007
PMCPMC6006026
OpenAlexW2784912036

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.