ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2024
TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-country cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 alone for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- The cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient advanced colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Physicians and patients are uncertain whether this treatment option is clinically acceptable in different countries, underscoring the need for analyses of the cost-effectiveness of this regimen. Objectives: To guide doctors and patients to choose TAS-102 plus bevacizumab or TAS-102 monotherapy in cancer treatment. Design: The cost-effective analysis. Methods: A comprehensive Markov model of the 10-year horizon for three health states was established using data from the SUNLIGHT trial to evaluate the cost and health effects of TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab at particular willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, analyzing parameters including quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit, as well as incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were additionally conducted. Results: Treatment with TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy increased effectiveness (cost) by 0.39 ($151,474), 0.38 ($26,794), and 0.41 ($8596) QALYs, with an ICER of $388,171, $69,617, and $20,919 per QALY and an INHB of -0.62, -0.03, and 0.18 QALYs in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively. The utility of progression-free survival was the most important factor in this model. At respective WTP thresholds of $150,000, $65,000, and $37,653 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, the odds of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab being the dominant treatment were 0%, 49.6%, and 87.8%, respectively. In addition, mCRC patients with an Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status ⩾ 1 may be the best candidates for treatment. Conclusion: TAS-102 plus bevacizumab treatment represents a cost-effective third-line treatment for refractory mCRC from a Chinese payers' perspective, although the same was not true in the United States or United Kingdom at current drug prices.
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.