Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31897155›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2020

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide therapy for the treatment of unresected glioblastoma.

Zhaoyan Chen, Mei Zhan, Fangyuan Tian, Ting Xu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Selectively recommendRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2021
    Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhaoyan ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China.
Mei ZhanDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China.
Fangyuan TianDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China.
Ting XuDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, P.R. China.
Sichuan University · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma, a cancer that originates from astrocytes, is the most prevalent malignant glioma in the adult population. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab (BEV) as a supplement to standard temozolomide (TMZ) treatment for unresected glioblastoma. The analyzed data were from a phase II trial that showed a survival benefit following combination therapy, when compared with TMZ monotherapy. According to the clinical symptoms and disease progression, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a Chinese societal perspective. Health outcomes were retrieved from the GENOM 009 trial, and utility parameters were obtained from published literature. Uncertainties within the model were addressed through one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The addition of BEV to TMZ therapy increased overall costs by $30,894.99, with a gain of 0.18 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), resulting in an ICER of $171,638.83/QALY. Both one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that BEV/TMZ co-treatment was not cost-effective in the context of a $26,508.00/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The utility of the progression-free survival state had the most noticeable impact on the ICER. In summary, the combination of BEV and TMZ should not be considered a cost-effective neoadjuvant treatment option for patients with unresected glioblastoma in China, from a societal perspective. However, in view of the survival benefits conferred, an appropriate price discount or the use of medical insurance could make BEV affordable for this patient population.

Indexed as

bevacizumabcost-effectivenessneoadjuvant treatmentunresected glioblastoma

Identifiers

PMID31897155
PMCPMC6924092
OpenAlexW2985871160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.