ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2019
Abiraterone acetate and docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy in high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China: an indirect treatment comparison and cost analysis.
Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Health Economics of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive and Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Literature Review with Application to the Canadian Context.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy before radical prostatectomy in high-risk localized prostate cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Real-world effectiveness of novel hormonal agents and docetaxel in patients with prostate cancer: A head-to-head comparison.iScience · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of talazoparib plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-generation androgen receptor antagonists for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in China and United States.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Alpha emitter radium-223 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A cost-utility analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo conduct an indirect treatment comparison of patients with high-volume mHSPC and a cost analysis between Abi-ADT and Doc-ADT therapies in China.
methodsThe Bucher technique for indirect treatment comparison was used. A cost analysis was conducted from both healthcare and patient perspectives.
resultsThe indirect treatment comparison demonstrated no significant difference in PFS for Abi-ADT versus Doc-ADT (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07). Doc-ADT therapy costs less than Abi-ADT, with potential savings of up to RMB 887,057 per patient from the healthcare perspective and RMB 226,210 per patient from the patient perspective.
conclusionsNo significant differences in PFS between Doc-ADT and Abi-ADT therapy for patients with high-volume mHSPC. Doc-ADT therapy is a cost-saving alternative to Abi-ADT in China.
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.