Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 9 de 9
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) ; 29(1): e13196, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31825141

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Using data from the 4-year follow-up results of an open, randomised, phase II study, this patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis compares mFOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the IRI arm) with mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the OXA arm) as first-line treatments in patients with locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). METHODS: A Markov model was created based on previous results reported at the 2016 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium to evaluate mFOLFIRI and mFOLFOX7 for advanced GC quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were examined as the primary outcomes. RESULTS: For the evaluable 128 patients, treatment efficacy was 0.59 QALYs for the IRI arm and 0.70 QALYs for the OXA arm, with a total cost of $13,861.34 for the IRI arm and $14,127.30 for the OXA arm. Hence, the ICER was $2,417.82 per QALY the OXA arm, which was below the threshold of 3 × per capita GDP of China. For subgroup analysis of those receiving mFOLFIRI followed by mFOLFOX7 (the IRI arm) and the reverse (the OXA arm), the OXA arm gained 0.44 more QALYs than the IRI arm with a total cost of $28,890.09 for the IRI arm and $31,147.30 for the OXA arm. However, the cost per QALY was also lower for the OXA arm than for the IRI arm, and the cost per QALY gained was $5,129.55 (below the Chinese WTP). CONCLUSION: mFOLFOX7 is a very high cost-effective alternative as the first-line treatment for those patients with advanced GC compared with mFOLFIRI.

2.
Front Oncol ; 9: 1180, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31788447

RESUMO

Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is a relatively rare and aggressive malignant tumor with a poor prognosis. A systematic review of current clinical studies illustrates an extreme paucity of second-line therapeutic options following the failure of standard-of-care cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The efficacy of apatinib, an highly potent and selective oral inhibitor of VEGFR-2 tyrosine kinase, for refractory advanced GBC has not yet been clarified. Herein, we report a case of advanced GBC that presented a durable partial response to apatinib used as monotherapy after the failure of multiline chemotherapies including S-1 monotherapy, capecitabine monotherapy, gemcitabine plus capecitabine, and irinotecan plus oxaliplatin. The patient achieved an efficacy of partial response within 2 months. By September 23, 2019, the duration of treatment had extended for almost 1 year with a satisfactory quality of life, and the administration of apatinib was continued. Dose reduction of apatinib occurred at week four due to grade 2 hypertension and hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). No fatigue, proteinuria, mucositis, or thrombocytopenia occurred. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of a successful use of apatinib monotherapy for heavily pretreated GBC. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy and safety of apatinib in GBC.

3.
Breast Cancer ; 2019 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31853795

RESUMO

PURPOSE: In a recent randomized, open-label trial (S0226), the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole therapy decreased the risk of progression and death in patients with hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line setting is unknown. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to assess the costs and clinical outcomes of fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole as a first-line therapy in a cohort of patients with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. The transition probabilities were estimated from the fitted survival curves in the S0226 trial. Health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for fulvestrant plus anastrozole compared with anastrozole from US payer's perspective. RESULTS: Fulvestrant plus anastrozole led to an improvement of 0.11 QALYs compared with treatment with anastrozole alone. However, incorporating fulvestrant into the first-line therapy produced significantly higher health care costs ($72,496 vs. $38,959 for all eligible patients, and $73,728 vs. $37,239 for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy), resulting in ICERs of $300,564 and $194,450/QALY, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that when the cost of fulvestrant decreased to $1.5/mg for all eligible patients or $3.5/mg for patients with no previous hormonal adjuvant therapy, at the perfect health in progression-free status, the ICER became $141,320 and $145,543 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Substituting fulvestrant as a first-line therapy for hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer is not cost-effective compared with anastrozole based on the willing-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

4.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31597496

RESUMO

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatments in resected pancreatic cancer. Methods: A Markov model was developed to mimic the disease process of postoperative pancreatic cancer, encompassing three health states (relapse-free survival, recurrent disease, and death). Health outcomes and utility scores were derived from the phase III trial and available literature. Cost data were calculated using standard fee data from the West China Hospital for 2017. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to explore model uncertainty. Results: Treatment with S-1 was estimated to yield 1.61 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost of $25,696, whereas treatment with gemcitabine yielded 1.27 QALYs at a cost of $28,930. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of S-1 versus gemcitabine was $-9,490 per QALY. Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of $25,841 per QALY, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was $15,786 for S-1 and $3,727 for gemcitabine, generating the incremental NMB of $12,059. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probabilities of S-1 and gemcitabine being cost-effective were 92% and 8%, respectively. Results were robust to changes in parameters. Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy using S-1 is a cost-effective alternative compared to gemcitabine in patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer from the Chinese societal perspective.

5.
Lung Cancer ; 136: 98-101, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31476529

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy compared with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with different tumor proportion scores (TPS), from perspectives of payers in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Basic information was derived from the KEYNOTE-042 trial. A Markov model was developed to simulate the process of NSCLC. Model inputs were based on published clinical trials and previous literatures. Costs were calculated from perspectives of payers in China. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: Treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy for patients with high TPS (≥50%) was estimated to increase costs by $65,322 compared with chemotherapy, with a gain of 1.79 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $36,493 per QALY. For patient population with TPS ≥ 20%, the ICER was $42,311 per QALY, while the corresponding ICER was $39,404 per QALY for patients with TPS ≥ 1%. Sensitive analyses for three different TPS populations were similar, which indicated the cost of PFS state in pembrolizumab arm and the price of pembrolizumab were the most influential factors in our study. CONCLUSION: ICERs yield by pembrolizumab monotherapy among different TPS populations were beyond the threshold we set, three times of the Gross Domestic Product per Capita of China in 2018 ($26,508/QALY). It is not a cost effective choice compared with standard chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC from the perspective of Chinese payer, regardless of TPS. Deeper discount of its current price would make pembrolizumab a preferable choice.

6.
Lung Cancer ; 130: 1-4, 2019 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30885327

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial has shown atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer could significantly prolong overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung from an American perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Basic medical information was derived from the double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (IMpower133, NCT02763579). A Markov model was developed to simulate the process of small-cell lung cancer, including three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death. Utilities and costs were obtained from published resources. Sensitivity analyses were applied to explore the impact of essential variables. RESULTS: Treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was estimated to increase costs by $52,881compared with chemotherapy alone, with a gain of 0.10 quality adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to an incremental cost-effective ratio of $528,810 per QALY. The cost of PFS state and atezolizumab were the most influential factors to the model. CONCLUSION: The combination of atezolizumab, carboplatin and etoposide is not a cost-effective choice in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC from an American perspective.

7.
Cancer Manag Res ; 10: 4065-4072, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30323662

RESUMO

Background: The effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer has been evaluated in the ESPAC-4 trial. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these adjuvant regimens on resected pancreatic cancer. Methods: A Markov model was established to simulate the disease process of resected pancreatic cancer (relapse-free survival, progressive disease, and death). The efficacy and toxicity profiles were collected from the ESPAC-4 trial. Transition probabilities were calculated based on survival in each group. Cost data were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. The primary endpoint in the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and model uncertainties were explored by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Our results demonstrated that gemcitabine monotherapy cost $36,028.45 and yielded a survival of 1.02 quality-adjusted life year (QALY), while gemcitabine plus capecitabine cost $46,095.05 and yielded a survival of 1.23 QALY. Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy was $45,191.23 which surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $29,291.42 per QALY in China. Conclusion: The gemcitabine monotherapy regimen is more cost-effective compared with gemcitabine plus capecitabine regimen for the patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer from the Chinese societal perspective.

8.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol ; 143(2): 361-368, 2017 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27798730

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Apatinib, a third-line or later treatment for advanced gastric cancer (aGC), was shown to improve overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in the phase III trial. Given the modest benefit with high costs, we further evaluated the cost-effectiveness of apatinib for patients with chemotherapy-refractory aGC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of aGC (PFS, progressive disease, and death) and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of apatinib to placebo. The health outcomes and utility scores were derived from the phase III trial and previously published sources, respectively. Total costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore model uncertainties. RESULTS: Treatment with apatinib was estimated to provide an incremental 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $8113.86 compared with placebo, which resulted in an ICER of $90,154.00 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that across the wide variation of parameters, the ICER exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700.00 per QALY which was three times the Gross Domestic Product per Capita in China. CONCLUSIONS: Apatinib is not a cost-effective option for patients with aGC who experienced failure of at least two lines chemotherapy in China. However, for its positive clinical value and subliminal demand, apatinib can provide a new therapeutic option.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/economia , Piridinas/economia , Neoplasias Gástricas/tratamento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Resistencia a Medicamentos Antineoplásicos , Humanos , Cadeias de Markov , Método de Monte Carlo , Piridinas/farmacologia , Piridinas/uso terapêutico , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Neoplasias Gástricas/mortalidade , Resultado do Tratamento
9.
Bioresour Technol ; 206: 164-172, 2016 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26871299

RESUMO

A comprehensive model of thermal balance and degradation kinetics was developed to determine the optimal reactor volume and insulation material. Biological heat production and five channels of heat loss were considered in the thermal balance model for a representative reactor. Degradation kinetics was developed to make the model applicable to different types of substrates. Simulation of the model showed that the internal energy accumulation of compost was the significant heat loss channel, following by heat loss through reactor wall, and latent heat of water evaporation. Lower proportion of heat loss occurred through the reactor wall when the reactor volume was larger. Insulating materials with low densities and low conductive coefficients were more desirable for building small reactor systems. Model developed could be used to determine the optimal reactor volume and insulation material needed before the fabrication of a lab-scale composting system.


Assuntos
Reatores Biológicos , Laboratórios , Modelos Teóricos , Solo , Temperatura Ambiente , Celulose/metabolismo , Convecção , Temperatura Alta , Lignina/metabolismo , Polissacarídeos/metabolismo , Solubilidade
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA