A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Gérard, Claire; Fagnoni, Philippe; Vienot, Angélique; Borg, Christophe; Limat, Samuel; Daval, Franck; Calais, François; Vardanega, J.; Jary, Marine; Nerich, Virginie

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.035

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 17 , 18 On the other hand, researchers are increasingly learning that NBFs, including insurance status, marital status, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and unemployment, serve as an unneglected indicator of the prognosis of PDAC. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 Thorough evaluations of the clinical significance of NBFs have been made in the colon and rectal cancers. 19 , 20 However, the systematic study of all these NBFs in PDAC remains a field lack of exploration, not to mention the combination of the AJCC‐TNM system with NBFs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 6 , 7 , 8 It is widely known that the prognosis of patients with PDAC is influenced by the tumor's innate behavior and natural history (biological factors [BFs]). 9 Recent studies have shown that nonbiological factors (NBFs), such as health insurance status, 10 marital status, 11 , 12 socioeconomic status, 13 educational attainment, 14 , 15 , 16 and unemployment status, were associated with the prognosis of patients with PDAC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Real‐world implications of nonbiological factors with staging, clinical management, and prognostic prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor‐node‐metastasis (TNM) staging system focuses on traditional biological factors (BFs). The present study incorporates nonbiological factors (NBFs) into the AJCC‐TNM staging system in terms of the advanced clinical management and prognostic‐prediction accuracy of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Eight thousand three hundred and thirty eligible patients with PDAC were obtained from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and Kaplan–Meier curves were used to testify the feasibility of cancer‐specific survival (CSS) prediction based on TNM‐NBF stages. Results The large population‐based study demonstrated that NBFs (insurance status, marital status, county‐level median household income, and unemployment) were significant prognostic indicators ( p < 0.005), and multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the NBF1 stage carried a 29.4% increased risk of cancer‐specific mortality than NBF0 stage ( p < 0.001). The concordance index of TNM‐NBF stage was 0.755 (95% confidence interval: 0.740–0.769). Conclusions The novel NBF stage was independently associated with CSS of PDAC. In addition, combining TNM with the NBF stage could provide better clinical management and prognostic‐prediction accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real‐world implications of nonbiological factors with staging, clinical management, and prognostic prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…28 Our study addresses the unmet need for the economic assessment of maintenance olaparib use. 29 Based on the results of the POLO trial, 8 our analysis showed that maintenance olaparib treatment of MPC harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation could be optimal for WTP thresholds ,$200,000 per additional QALY when only the health benefits in the PFS disease phase were considered. Nearly half of the subgroups favored maintenance olaparib treatment because of its positive trend of gaining an INHB compared with placebo.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Wu¹,

Shi

2020

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been shown to be effective. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for MPC from the US payer perspective. Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MPC. Efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the Pancreas Cancer Olaparib Ongoing (POLO) trial. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each POLO group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net-health benefit, and incremental monetary benefit were measured. Subgroup analysis, one-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the model uncertainties. Results: Maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $191,596 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a high cost of $132,287 and 0.691 PFS QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that maintenance olaparib achieved at least a 16.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and the cost of olaparib. When overall survival was considered, maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $265,290 per additional QALY gained, with a high cost of $128,266 and 0.483 QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib is potentially cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with a germline BRCA mutation and MPC. Economic outcomes could be improved by tailoring treatment based on individual patient factors.

show abstract

“…The BMJ checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) was used to assess the quality of the economic evaluation studies included in the present review. This checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) has been widely used and scrutinized across different therapeutic fields (Azar et al 2017;Carter et al 2017;Dubas-Jak obczyk et al 2017;G erard et al 2017;Elshout et al 2018;Shields et al 2018;Ribeiro et al 2019). Additionally, it can be applied to both trialbased and model-based economic evaluation studies and it is the checklist recommended by the Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (Wijnen et al 2016;Ribeiro et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

Ribeiro

Marques

Alves

et al. 2020

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To characterize the effectiveness measures of cost-effectiveness studies (CES) of ophthalmic drugs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Embase until October 2019. Cost-effectiveness studies (CES) evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Sources of effectiveness measures were extracted. Data on study design and study outcomes were extracted from sources of effectiveness measures. The adequacy of the sample size of the clinical studies used as sources of effectiveness measures was assessed. If CES have retrieved effectiveness data from multiple sources, the appropriateness of the method to combine the results was analysed. Results: Forty-five CES were included. Thirty-one (68.9%) retrieved their effectiveness measures from experimental studies, five (11.1%) from observational studies and nine (20%) from other type of data sources. Eight (17.8%) CES used data from a primary outcome of a study as an effectiveness measure, eight (17.8%) used data from secondary outcomes, seven (15.6%) used data from the both primary and secondary outcomes and for 22 (48.9%) it was not possible to identify the outcomes used. From the 23 (51.1%) CES based on a single clinical study, three (6.7%) included data from clinical studies which had an adequate sample size to detect significant differences in the clinical outcomes used as effectiveness measures. From the 17 (37.8%) CES based on multiple clinical studies, only one (2.2%) used and/or reported an adequate method of quantitative synthesis (metaanalysis). Conclusion: A considerable number of CES in ophthalmology were not based on clinical studies with adequate sample sizes and report results from effectiveness measures not assessed as primary outcomes.

show abstract

A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Cited by 12 publications

References 52 publications

Real‐world implications of nonbiological factors with staging, clinical management, and prognostic prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Real‐world implications of nonbiological factors with staging, clinical management, and prognostic prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About