4.4 Article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine, S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study

Journal

MEDICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12032-015-0580-4

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness; Pancreatic cancer; Gemcitabine; S-1; Gemcitabine plus S-1

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gemcitabine (GEM) alone, S-1 alone and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) have shown a marginal clinical benefit for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. However, there is no clearly defined optimal cost-effectiveness treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of GEM alone, S-1 alone and GS for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study for public payers. A decision model compared GEM alone, S-1 alone and GS. Primary base case data were identified using the GEST study and the literatures. Costs were estimated from West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs). Sensitive analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. The base case analysis showed that the GEM cost $21,912 and yielded survival of 6.93 QALMs, S-1 cost $19,371 and yielded survival of 7.90 QALMs and GS cost $22,943 and yielded survival of 7.46 QALMs in the entire treatment. The one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER of S-1 was driven mostly by the S-1 group utility score of stable state compared with GEM, and the GEM group utility score of progressed state played a key role on the ICER of GS compared with GEM. S-1 represents an attractive cost-effective treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, given the favorable cost per QALM and improvement in clinical efficacy, especially the limited available treatment options.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available