Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The accord 11/0402 trial demonstrated that folfirinox (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin) is significantly more efficacious than gemcitabine monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mpc). The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of first-line folfirinox compared with first-line gemcitabine for public payers in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model simulated the movement of mpc patients from first-line treatment until death. Overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs) data were derived from accord. Published utility data and Canadian costs were applied based on time in each health state and on treatment-related adverse event (ae) rates. Costs included first- and second-line therapy, monitoring, and costs to treat aes. Two separate analyses were performed. Analysis 1 was based on trial data [first-line folfirinox followed by second-line gemcitabine compared with first-line gemcitabine followed by second-line platinum-based chemotherapy, with use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) allowed], and analysis 2 used Ontario treatment patterns before folfirinox funding (first-line folfirinox followed by second-line gemcitabine compared with first-line gemcitabine followed by best supportive care, no use of g-csf). RESULTS: Compared with first-line gemcitabine, first-line folfirinox resulted in more life-years and quality adjusted life-years (qalys). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results showed that, for analyses 1 and 2 respectively, folfirinox has a greater than 85% probability and an approximately 80% probability of being cost-effective at the $100,000 threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with gemcitabine, first-line folfirinox significantly prolongs median os. Given the favourable cost per qaly, the improvement in clinical efficacy, and the limited available treatment options, folfirinox represents an attractive cost-effective treatment for mpc.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".