ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab vs. monotherapy for third-line treatment of colorectal cancer.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms of Traditional Chinese Medicine-Derived Alkaloids in Colorectal Cancer Therapy: Molecular Targets, Preclinical Evidence, and Translational Prospects.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Social Burden and Healthcare Costs of Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The combination of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and bevacizumab has demonstrated promising efficacy and safety in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab vs. trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy as a third-line treatment regimen for colorectal cancer within the Chinese healthcare system, providing an economic basis for clinical application. Methods: Based on data from the SUNLIGHT Phase III clinical trial, a dynamic Markov model was constructed with a cycle length of 4 weeks and a simulation duration of 10 years. Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP = ¥268,200.00/QALY) to assess the economic viability of the treatment regimen. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to verify the robustness of the model results. Results: The cost of trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab treatment (¥838,492.74) was higher than that of trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy (¥357,396.97), with greater health benefits (2.45 QALYs vs. 1.54 QALYs). The ICER was ¥527,577.36/QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that drug costs and utility values during the progression-free period significantly impacted model outputs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis further confirmed the robustness of the results, showing that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥494,000.00, the probability of the combined treatment being cost-effective was 50%. Conclusion: Trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab, as a third-line treatment for colorectal cancer, does not have a cost-effectiveness advantage compared to trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy in economic evaluations.
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.