Cost-effectiveness of capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin (XELOX) compared with FOLFOX for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A Canadian evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17502 Background: Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine used to treat patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recent trials in 1st- and 2nd-line treatment have shown that capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin (XELOX) is non-inferior to FOLFOX4 in terms of progression-free survival, overall survival and response rates. XELOX offers patients the advantage of treatment every 3 weeks rather than every 2 weeks without the need for lengthy infusions. This analysis evaluated the cost- effectiveness of replacing FOLFOX4 with XELOX for 1st- and 2nd-line treatment of mCRC from both Canadian healthcare system payor and societal perspectives. Methods: Based on evidence of non-inferiority of XELOX vs. FOLFOX4, cost-minimization analyses (CMA) were conducted using phase III clinical trial data. The CMA compared total cost associated with chemotherapy medications, administration of chemotherapy, and treatment related toxicities. For the societal perspective, patients’ costs and time were also included. The costs (or savings) were compared for 1st-line XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 and 2nd-line XELOX vs. FOLFOX4. Due to variation in Canadian clinical practice, sensitivity analyses using the FOLFOX6 regimen as a comparator were performed. Results: Cost savings per patient for XELOX vs. FOLFOX4 from a healthcare system payor perspective and a societal perspective are shown in the Table . XELOX was also associated with cost savings when compared with the simplified administration regimen of FOLFOX6. Reduced costs for chemotherapy administration and costs for patients’ time and travel primarily related to fewer clinic visits offset the increased drug acquisition cost of the XELOX regimen. Conclusions: Replacing FOLFOX with XELOX is associated with cost savings from the healthcare system payor and societal perspectives while preserving clinical efficacy. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".