Costs Associated with Capecitabine or 5-Fluorouracil Monotherapy after Surgical Resection in Patients with Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare chemotherapy-related and total medical costs among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monotherapy after surgical resection. METHODS: This retrospective, claim-based study utilized the Thomson Reuters Market Scan(R) databases to identify 1,396 CRC patients who received capecitabine or 5-FU monotherapy within 90 days of surgical resection from 2003 through 2006. Propensity score matching addressed selection bias, and multivariate models estimated adjusted relative risks of treatment-related complications and medical costs of matched cohorts. RESULTS: Capecitabine users incurred USD 740 less in total direct medical costs (p = 0.003) and USD 785 less in chemotherapy-related costs (p < 0.0001) than 5-FU users. Although drug acquisition cost was higher for capecitabine than for 5-FU (USD 958 vs. USD 71, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy administration cost was lower (USD 76 vs. USD 1,062, p < 0.0001). The unadjusted (610 vs. 1,960 events per 1,000 person-months) and adjusted risks (47%) were lower for capecitabine than 5-FU for any complication, and specifically for bone marrow (67%), gastrointestinal (50%), and constitutional (41%) complications (p < 0.0001, all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy was associated with lower total medical and chemotherapy-related costs than 5-FU. Reduced complications and costs associated with capecitabine administration offset the higher acquisition cost.
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) | 0.000 | 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".