ArticleCancer management and research2018
Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in China based on the ESPAC-4 trial.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a retrospective Markov model analysis from China.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatment approaches for early breast cancer: a retrospective matched cohort study from China.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- AreCancers · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Cetuximab Plus Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer has been evaluated in the ESPAC-4 trial. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these adjuvant regimens on resected pancreatic cancer.
methodsA Markov model was established to simulate the disease process of resected pancreatic cancer (relapse-free survival, progressive disease, and death). The efficacy and toxicity profiles were collected from the ESPAC-4 trial. Transition probabilities were calculated based on survival in each group. Cost data were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. The primary endpoint in the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and model uncertainties were explored by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
resultsOur results demonstrated that gemcitabine monotherapy cost $36,028.45 and yielded a survival of 1.02 quality-adjusted life year (QALY), while gemcitabine plus capecitabine cost $46,095.05 and yielded a survival of 1.23 QALY. Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy was $45,191.23 which surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $29,291.42 per QALY in China.
conclusionThe gemcitabine monotherapy regimen is more cost-effective compared with gemcitabine plus capecitabine regimen for the patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer from the Chinese societal 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.