ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
Value contribution of trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Catalonia using a multicriteria decision analysis.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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.
- The Contribution of Dostarlimab to First-Line Treatment of Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer in Spain: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the alternatives available in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), evaluating new therapies continues to be a challenge for clinicians and decision-makers. We aimed to generate a conceptual framework and establish the value criteria for evaluating treatments in mCRC and to apply this framework to assess the value of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) + bevacizumab (BEVA) in advanced lines of therapy for mCRC versus alternatives. Methods: A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was conducted according to the modified EVIDEM assessment framework and the following process: defining the decision problem, selecting and structuring the related criteria identified in a literature review, weighting criteria, measurement of performance, and scoring alternatives, to evaluate of mCRC therapies in Catalonia (Spain). An expert panel of five members with experience in cancer treatment in Catalonia was involved. A hierarchical and non-hierarchical weighting of the criteria and sub-criteria was performed. An evidence matrix of available treatments was developed, and experts assigned scores comparing FTD/TPI + BEVA versus alternatives. Results: Five value criteria and 18 sub-criteria were selected to evaluate mCRC therapies. According to hierarchical method, efficacy had the highest weight, followed by safety, and lower weights for the rest: cost, guidelines/expert consensus, and epidemiology. In the efficacy dimension, overall survival (OS) had the highest weight, while severe adverse events received the highest score in terms of safety. Non-hierarchical weighting corroborated these results. Treatment with FTD/TPI + BEVA obtained a positive overall value contribution of 0.91, 0.43 points considering only comparative criteria. Comparative criteria were highly important, obtaining values contribution for efficacy, safety and cost of 0.19, 0.15 and 0.12 points, respectively. OS (0.20), progression-free survival (0.19), disease control rate (0.16) and health-related quality of life (0.16) were the most relevant sub-criteria. Conclusion: Based on this MCDA, the high value contribution of FTD/TPI + BEVA suggests its substantial benefits over the most used alternatives.
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.