ArticleScientific reports2025
Cost-effectiveness of systematic chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a retrospective study using Japanese clinical data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revelations of pancreatic cancer treated by high-intensity focused ultrasound.Discover 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
Abstract
We compared the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX)-standard first-line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan. This retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated at the National Cancer Center Hospital East in Japan between December 2013 and February 2017. A partitioned survival model, featuring five mutually exclusive health states, was developed. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A 2% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Parameter uncertainty effect was assessed using a one-way sensitivity analysis. mFFX treatment involved intravenous infusions of oxaliplatin, levofolinate, and irinotecan, whereas GnP treatment involved weekly intravenous administration of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. Dosages were adjusted based on observed adverse events. The total costs of the mFFX and GnP arms were JPY 3,193,597 (USD 31,006) and JPY 3,913,171 (USD 37,992), respectively. Incremental total costs of JPY 719,574 (USD 6,986) were associated with GnP compared to mFFX. Total QALYs were 0.427 and 0.435 for mFFX and GnP, respectively. Therefore, GnP has slightly higher QALYs than mFFX in Japanese real-world clinical practice, suggesting it has a potentially better safety profile, although the impact on healthcare costs persists.
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.