↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFOX4 and sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12962-018-0112-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shukui Qin, Eliza Kruger, Seng Chuen Tan, Shuqun Cheng, Nanya Wang, Jun Liang

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. In China, sorafenib and oxaliplatin plus infusional-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) are approved for the systemic treatment of advanced HCC. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of these therapies from a healthcare system perspective and a patient perspectives. A Markov model was constructed using overall and progression-free survival rates and adverse event (AE) rate from two randomized controlled studies of advanced HCC patients from Asia: EACH for FOLFOX4 and ORIENTAL for sorafenib. The patients in the Markov model were followed until death, the length of each Markov cycle was 1 month, and the survival was adjusted for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Direct medical costs included costs of therapies, AE treatment, general ward and tests. Costs were derived from published sources, interviews with oncologists and hospital data from China. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the results. From the healthcare system perspective, FOLFOX4 dominated sorafenib with lower therapy costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 6972; sorafenib: US$ 12,289), lower direct medical costs (FOLFOX4: US$ 8428; sorafenib: US$ 12,798), and higher QALYs (FOLFOX4: 0.42; sorafenib: 0.38) per patient. This result was robust according to comprehensive one-way sensitivity analyses. According to the PSA, at the cost-effectiveness threshold for China (3 × GDP, US$ 22,073), FOLFOX4 should be chosen in 63.9% of simulations. From the patient perspective, FOLFOX4 also dominated sorafenib. The study results indicate that FOLFOX4 dominates sorafenib because it appears to provide higher effectiveness with significantly lower costs in treating Chinese advanced HCC patients.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 25%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 05 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,093,485
of 13,331,643 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#52
of 227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,418
of 268,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,331,643 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 268,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them