↓ Skip to main content

Cost Effectiveness of Chemotherapeutic Agents and Targeted Biologics in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Cost Effectiveness of Chemotherapeutic Agents and Targeted Biologics in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40273-015-0304-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Insiya B. Poonawalla, Rohan C. Parikh, Xianglin L. Du, Helena M. VonVille, David R. Lairson

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy is a key component of advanced ovarian cancer treatment, when surgery alone is not sufficient. Recurrence is common in ovarian cancer patients and most women require prolonged second-line and higher-line chemotherapy. With newer targeted therapies, modest improvements in survival and quality of life may be attained at substantial cost, but the relative economic efficiency of these newer agents remains unknown. We undertook this systematic review to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various chemotherapeutic and targeted therapy alternatives for ovarian cancer. We searched Medline, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify economic evaluations published over the last 18 years (1996-2014). From the 2513 unique papers retrieved, 74 full texts were selected for full-text review based on a priori eligibility criteria. Two authors independently reviewed these articles to determine eligibility for final review. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES). A total of 28 studies were included for reporting. Administration of intravenous cisplatin-paclitaxel combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment was the most cost-effective alternative (2014 US dollars [USD] equivalent incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] ~US$17,000-US$27,000 per life year gained [LYG]), while the use of bevacizumab did not demonstrate similar value for money (2014 USD equivalent ICER was greater than US$200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). For second-line treatment, the use of platinum-paclitaxel combination or platinum monotherapy was cost-effective compared with platinum monotherapy or best supportive care, respectively, in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease. For patients with partial platinum sensitivity, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus trabectedin may be cost-effective (2014 USD equivalent ICER was ~US$57,000-US$62,000 per QALY) compared with PLD alone. For recurrent platinum-resistant cases, there was limited evidence to conclude the most valuable treatment; though one study showed that best supportive care was most cost-effective, while second-line monotherapy with doxorubicin (2014 USD equivalent ICER was ~US$90,000 per LYG) may also be cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Despite varying methodological approaches and multiple sources for cost and effectiveness inputs, this systematic review demonstrated that standard platinum-taxane combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment was most cost-effective. There was unanimous agreement that bevacizumab was not a cost-effective front-line therapy compared with platinum-taxane combination for the overall ovarian cancer population, though its use in the high-use population may yield better value. For second-line treatment, platinum-based chemotherapy remained cost-effective among patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease, while there was limited evidence to conclude the most valuable treatment alternative among patients with recurrent platinum-resistant disease. Future research incorporating real-world data is essential to corroborate findings from trial-based economic evaluations. In addition, for improving consistency in reporting and quality of studies, incorporating QALYs in this population is important, especially since chemotherapy is administered for lengthy periods of time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 15 27%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,414,796
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,600
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,253
of 264,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#27
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 264,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.