ArticleScientific reports2025
Cost effectiveness of bevacizumab plus carboplatin paclitaxel versus carboplatin paclitaxel as front line for advanced ovarian cancer in Thailand.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Bevacizumab (BEV) combined with standard chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) as the front-line treatment for newly diagnosed advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a promising treatment option. In Thailand, combined BEV and CP for patients with high-risk EOC is not yet covered. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of combined BEV and CP for subgroups with high-risk EOC. Cost-utility analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of CP alone versus combined BEV and CP according to the Gynecologic Oncology Group-218 (GOG-218) and the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms 7 (ICON-7) regimens in patients with EOC. The decision tree model and Markov model were applied, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were analyzed. Data on direct medical costs were obtained from cost databases in Thailand. Details about all clinical parameters and direct non-medical costs were obtained from published studies. Utility information was collected by interviewing patient subgroups with high-risk EOC. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter uncertainties. Based on the provider and societal perspectives, the ICERs of CP and the GOG-218 regimen were $31,266 and $31,966 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively. Meanwhile, the ICERs of CP and the ICON-7 regimen were $14,331 and $15,003 per QALY gained, respectively. The probabilities of cost-effectiveness for using BEV as the GOG-218 and ICON-7 regimens were 0% and 3%, respectively, based on the willingness-to-pay threshold in Thailand ($4,571 per QALY gained). The median progression-free survival of patients who received combined BEV and CP was the most important parameter leading to more benefit from using BEV. BEV as the GOG-218 or ICON-7 regimen may not be cost-effective for patient subgroups with high-risk EOC in Thailand. However, BEV as the ICON-7 regimen is more likely to be effective.
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.