ArticleBMJ open2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 Study Evaluating TAS-102 Plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) Versus Placebo Plus BSC in Patients With Metastatic Gastric Cancer Refractory to Standard Treatments
TAS-102 Combined With Anlotinib in Patients With Metastatic Gastric Cancer Refractory to Standard Treatments (THALIA): a Prospective Single-arm Phase II Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cadonilimab plus chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in China and the United States: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. DESIGNS: Based on the overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) data from the Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS) trial (NCT02500043), a three-state Markov model (PFS, progressed disease and death) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of FTD/TPI compared with the placebo in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer. Cost and utility were from pricing records and the literature. The model was simulated for 5 years with monthly cycles. Costs and health outcomes were discounted by 5%. We then conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the parameters. The model results were from the Chinese healthcare system. OUTCOME MEASURES: The output results were the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsAccording to the model results, FTD/TPI generated an additional cost of US$26 855.66 and 0.88 QALYs compared with the placebo. ICER of FTD/TPI compared with the placebo was US$30 494.89 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the utility value of the PFS stage and FTD/TPI adverse event costs were the main influencing parameters, and the results were stable. At a threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product of China (US$35 559.34 in 2022), the probability of FTD/TPI being cost-effective compared with placebo was 99.2%.
conclusionFrom the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, FTD/TPI is a more cost-effective option compared with the placebo for the treatment of heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer in patients who have received at least two prior advanced treatment regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Chinese population registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400080940) and clinical trial (NCT05029102).
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.