Capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For patients with anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma, capecitabine plus docetaxel significantly increased overall survival compared with docetaxel alone. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the capecitabine/docetaxel combination versus docetaxel monotherapy, comparing the gain in quality-adjusted survival with associated health care costs. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive 21-day cycles of oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily, on Days 1-14, plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Day 1 (n = 255), or docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 (n = 256). Health and cost outcomes in the two arms were compared, and cost-effectiveness was estimated. Data on survival time and medical care resource use were prospectively collected in the trial. Costs associated with medical care resource use and quality-of-life adjustments were obtained from the published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Capecitabine/docetaxel increased the median overall survival by 3 months compared with docetaxel alone (14.5 vs. 11.5 months). The mean quality-adjusted survival was increased by 1.8 months in the capecitabine/docetaxel group. The total medical-resource utilization cost per patient was 8.9% higher with the combination: 24,475 dollars for combination therapy versus 22,477 dollars for single-agent docetaxel. The mean cost per QALY gained with combination therapy was 13,558 dollars (standard deviation, 6742 dollars). Cost savings due to reduced docetaxel dose and hospital use were the major cost offsets with the combination. Sensitivity analyses showed that varying the mean hospital cost per day from the 5th to the 95th percentile resulted in cost-utility ratios ranging from 20,326 dollars to as low as 6360 dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine/docetaxel was a cost-effective treatment in patients with anthracycline-pretreated advanced breast carcinoma, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that compares very favorably with that of many other oncology therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".