| Title |
Is the routine use of bevacizumab in the treatment of women with advanced or recurrent cancer of the cervix sustainable?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s71218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natalie Klag, Adam C Walter, Kristen M Sheely, Kelly J Manahan, John P Geisler |
| Abstract |
New chemotherapy combinations are being tested for the treatment of women with advanced, persistent or recurrent cervical cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of some newer combination therapies in cervical cancer. A cost effectiveness decision model was used to analyze Gynecologic Oncology Group 240. All regimens were modeled for seven cycles. The regimens studied are as follows: regimen 1, cisplatin/paclitaxel (CP); regimen 2, CP with bevacizumab (CP+B); regimen 3, paclitaxel/topotecan (PT); and regimen 4, PT with bevacizumab (PT+B). Overall survival, cost, and complications were studied. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Mean chemotherapy costs over mean total costs for seven cycles of each follows: CP $571/$32,966; CP+B $61,671/$96,842; PT $9,211/$71,620; and PT+B $70,312/$109,211. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CP+B was $133,559/quality adjusted life year (QALY). ICER for PT+B was $124,576/QALY. To achieve an incremental ICER for CP+B:CP of <$50,000/QALY gained, the mean overall survival has to increase from 1.1 years with CP to 3.5 years with CP+B. An ICER <$50,000/QALY for the other regimens would take a survival of >10 years for PT and 4.1 years for PT+B. Treating 1,000 women with cervical cancer with CP+B would cost almost double the cost of treating >18,000 women with ovarian cancer annually (carboplatin/paclitaxel). CP is the most cost effective regimen. A 12-month increase in overall survival will not even make the newer combinations cost effective. Currently, the use of bevacizumab is not sustainable at today's costs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 44% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#399
of 531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,502
of 353,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.