Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Clinical Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness of FOLFOX Versus LCCRT in Neoadjuvant Treatment for Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: An Economic Analysis of the FOWARC and PROSPECT Trial.
Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. 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. 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.
A Phase II/III Randomized Controlled Study of Neoadjuvant FOLFOX6 Treatment With or Without Radiation Compared to 5-Fu Based Chemoradiation in Treating Patients With Resectable Rectal Cancer
A Phase II/III Trial of Neoadjuvant FOLFOX With Selective Use of Combined Modality Chemoradiation Versus Preoperative Combined Modality Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Low Anterior Resection With Total Mesorectal Excision (PROSPECT)
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFOLFOX has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, whether FOLFOX, which replaces radiotherapy with chemotherapy, offers comprehensive clinical and economic advantages over conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT), especially in high-risk patients, remains unclear.
methodsWe conducted both within-trial and Markov model-based lifetime analyses to evaluate the short- and long-term economic and health outcomes of FOLFOX compared with LCCRT. Data were derived from the 3 and 10 year follow-up of the FOWARC trial (NCT01211210) in China and published data from the PROSPECT trial (NCT01515787) in the USA. Main outcomes included health utility, patient-reported outcomes of adverse events, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were evaluated from the healthcare perspective in 2023 US dollars. Subgroup, scenario, and sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsWithin-trial analysis showed that the FOLFOX group had an increasing utility trend, while LCCRT decreased. FOWARC found that LCCRT patients experienced more severe depression and social life impact compared with PROSPECT. Over 45.2 months, FOLFOX cost $3503 less and gained 0.18 more QALYs than LCCRT. Lifetime analysis estimated that FOLFOX gained 0.81 and 0.56 more QALYs, with cost savings of $12,018 and $87,643 compared with LCCRT in China and the USA, respectively. FOLFOX remained cost-effective in high-risk patients requiring supplementary radiotherapy, with LCCRT becoming preferable only when the proportion of these patients reached 64%.
conclusionsSelective radiotherapy avoidance with FOLFOX may be recommended for neoadjuvant treatment of LARC, even in high-risk patients. This substitution could save significant healthcare resources while improving QALYs globally. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01211210, NCT01515787.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41379261What 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.