Capecitabine or Infusional 5-fluorouracil for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Cost–Consequence Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, the phase iii Randomized ECF for Advanced and Locally Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer 2 (real-2) trial demonstrated equivalent clinical efficacy when capecitabine (x) was substituted for 5-fluorouracil (5fu) in the epirubicin-cisplatin-5fu (ecf) regimen. The present analysis compares the direct medical costs associated with both regimens. METHODS: This cost-consequence analysis of direct medical costs took resource utilization data from the real-2 trial where available. Direct medical costs were derived from the perspective of the Canadian public health care system in 2008 Canadian dollars. Mean cost per patient on each treatment arm was calculated. RESULTS: Drug costs from start of treatment until first progression, including pre- and post-chemotherapy medications and administration costs, totalled $5,344 for ecx as compared with $3,187 for ecf. Costs for treatment of adverse events were estimated at $2,621 for ecx as compared with $3,397 for ecf. An additional cost of $873 was associated with insertion of an implanted venous access. Total incremental cost of ecx over ecf was $508. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced gastroesophageal cancer, capecitabine is an attractive alternative to 5fu. Although the drug cost per se is greater, use of capecitabine is associated with decreased consumption of hospital resources. Not only does capecitabine fit with patient preference for oral therapy, it also avoids the inconvenience and complications of central venous access.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".