4.4 Article

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: How Much Uncertainty Is in the Results?

相关参考文献

注意:仅列出部分参考文献,下载原文获取全部文献信息。
Article Oncology

Impact of TAILORx on chemotherapy prescribing and 21-gene recurrence score-guided treatment costs in a population-based cohort of patients with breast cancer

Megan E. Tesch et al.

Summary: The study examined the real-world chemotherapy use and RS-guided treatment costs in British Columbia post-TAILORx. TAILORx has had significant population-based impacts on chemotherapy prescribing in intermediate RS tumors and patients <= 50 years old, but in patients 70-80 years old, RS testing led to lower clinical value and increased treatment costs, necessitating further research to ensure optimal care for this age group.

CANCER (2022)

Article Genetics & Heredity

Early-stage economic analysis of research-based comprehensive genomic sequencing for advanced cancer care

Deirdre Weymann et al.

Summary: This study examines the early-stage cost and health impacts of research-based genomic sequencing, utilizing real-world data and quasi-experimental matching. The results show that POG patients receiving WGTA-informed treatment experienced incremental survival gains of 2.49 months, with favorable future cost consequences as WGTA cost drivers declined.

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY GENETICS (2022)

Article Oncology

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pertuzumab With Trastuzumab in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer

Wei Fang Dai et al.

Summary: This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab compared to trastuzumab and chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer. The findings suggest that pertuzumab may increase survival for these patients, but it is not considered cost-effective based on conventional thresholds.

JAMA ONCOLOGY (2022)

Review Oncology

Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada

Andrea M. Guggenbickler et al.

Summary: Cost-effectiveness analysis provides evidence on the incremental gains in patient outcomes and costs from new treatments in cancer care. Real-world data analysis shows that cancer drug therapies have higher costs and effects compared to non-drug therapies. Studies using longer time horizons and modeling techniques have smaller incremental cost effectiveness ratios for treatments. The review emphasizes the importance of conducting real-world cost-effectiveness analysis to understand the costs and impacts of cancer treatments on a general patient population.

CURRENT ONCOLOGY (2022)

Article Oncology

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel vs FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Vanessa Arciero et al.

Summary: This study compared the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab and FOLFIRINOX for APC patients in Ontario, Canada. The results showed that patients in the Gem-Nab group had shorter survival and higher total costs compared to the FOLFIRINOX group, indicating that Gem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX.

JNCI CANCER SPECTRUM (2022)

Article Health Care Sciences & Services

Real-world direct healthcare costs of treating recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer with cytotoxic chemotherapy

Lucy Gilbert et al.

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH (2020)

Review Economics

Cost-effectiveness analyses using real-world data: an overview of the literature

Kevin Bowrin et al.

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ECONOMICS (2019)

Article Oncology

Population-Based Study to Determine the Health System Costs of Using the 21-Gene Assay

Nicole Mittmann et al.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY (2018)

Article Oncology

The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency

Sonya Cressman et al.

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY (2017)

Article Health Care Sciences & Services

Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis

Bas Groot Koerkamp et al.

MEDICAL DECISION MAKING (2007)

Article Economics

The death of cost-minimization analysis?

AH Briggs et al.

HEALTH ECONOMICS (2001)