ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine versus active monitoring in stable or responding metastatic colorectal cancer after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of tepotinib vs capmatinib as subsequent therapy in MET exon 14-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.Lung cancer management · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. Rivoceranib plus Camrelizumab as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of newly approved cetuximab biosimilars for first-line treatment of RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in China.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine versus active monitoring in stable or responding metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.
methodsA partitioned survival model (PSM) was constructed to determine the costs and effects of capecitabine and active monitoring based on FOCUS4-N trial data. The Chinese healthcare payer's perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-effectiveness was assessed by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at 37653 USD/QALY, which was three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of China in 2021. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).
resultsThere was no significant difference between capecitabine arm and active monitoring arm in QALYs (0.93 vs 0.92). The total cost of capecitabine arm was higher than that of active monitoring (35 061.61 USD vs 13 677.18 USD), suggesting the capecitabine group was not cost-effective in stable or responding mCRC after 16 weeks of first-line therapy. The cost of capecitabine and active monitoring had the largest impact on the ICER through one-way sensitivity analysis. The PSA indicated a 100% probability that active monitoring arm was cost-effective under the WTP.
conclusionsCompared to active monitoring, maintenance treatment with capecitabine alone was not cost-effective in stable or responding mCRC after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.
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.