Treatment burden and cost-effectiveness analysis of the neoadjuvant CROSS regimen in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.

Xing Gao, Zhi-Hao Yang, Yi-Hsuan Cheng, Chun-Ling Chi, Tzu-Yi Yang, Kai-Hao Chuang, Chiao-En Wu, Joseph Jan-Baptist van Lanschot, Yu-Wen Wen, Yin-Kai Chao
{"title":"Treatment burden and cost-effectiveness analysis of the neoadjuvant CROSS regimen in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.","authors":"Xing Gao,&nbsp;Zhi-Hao Yang,&nbsp;Yi-Hsuan Cheng,&nbsp;Chun-Ling Chi,&nbsp;Tzu-Yi Yang,&nbsp;Kai-Hao Chuang,&nbsp;Chiao-En Wu,&nbsp;Joseph Jan-Baptist van Lanschot,&nbsp;Yu-Wen Wen,&nbsp;Yin-Kai Chao","doi":"10.1093/dote/doad031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High-quality evidence indicated that both neoadjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (CROSS) and cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (PF) regimens in combination with radiotherapy improve survival outcomes compared to surgery alone in patients with esophageal cancer. It is not yet known whether they may differ in terms of treatment burden and healthcare costs. A total of 232 Taiwanese patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who had undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with either the CROSS (n = 153) or the PF (n = 79) regimens were included. Hospital encounters and adverse events were assessed for determining treatment burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using the total costs incurred over 3 years in relation to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with PF, the CROSS regimen was associated with a lower treatment burden: shorter inpatient days on average (4.65 ± 10.05 vs. 15.14 ± 17.63 days; P < 0.001) and fewer admission requirements (70% of the patients were never admitted vs. 20% in the PF group; P < 0.001). Patients in the CROSS group experienced significantly less nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. While the benefits observed in the CROSS group were associated with additional nCRT-related expenditures (1388 United States dollars [USD] of added cost per patient), this regimen remained cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000 USD per life-year, the probability of the CROSS regimen to be more cost-effective than PF was 94.1% for PFS but decreased to 68.9% for OS. The use of the CROSS regimen for nCRT in patients with ESCC was associated with a lower treatment burden and was more cost-effective than PF.</p>","PeriodicalId":11255,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doad031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High-quality evidence indicated that both neoadjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (CROSS) and cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (PF) regimens in combination with radiotherapy improve survival outcomes compared to surgery alone in patients with esophageal cancer. It is not yet known whether they may differ in terms of treatment burden and healthcare costs. A total of 232 Taiwanese patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who had undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with either the CROSS (n = 153) or the PF (n = 79) regimens were included. Hospital encounters and adverse events were assessed for determining treatment burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using the total costs incurred over 3 years in relation to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with PF, the CROSS regimen was associated with a lower treatment burden: shorter inpatient days on average (4.65 ± 10.05 vs. 15.14 ± 17.63 days; P < 0.001) and fewer admission requirements (70% of the patients were never admitted vs. 20% in the PF group; P < 0.001). Patients in the CROSS group experienced significantly less nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. While the benefits observed in the CROSS group were associated with additional nCRT-related expenditures (1388 United States dollars [USD] of added cost per patient), this regimen remained cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000 USD per life-year, the probability of the CROSS regimen to be more cost-effective than PF was 94.1% for PFS but decreased to 68.9% for OS. The use of the CROSS regimen for nCRT in patients with ESCC was associated with a lower treatment burden and was more cost-effective than PF.

食管鳞状细胞癌新辅助CROSS方案的治疗负担和成本效益分析:一项多中心回顾性研究。
高质量的证据表明,与单纯手术相比,新辅助卡铂/紫杉醇(CROSS)和顺铂/5-氟尿嘧啶(PF)方案联合放疗可改善癌症患者的生存结果。目前尚不清楚他们在治疗负担和医疗费用方面是否存在差异。共有232名台湾食管鳞状细胞癌患者接受了新辅助放化疗(nCRT) = 153)或PF(n = 79)方案。对医院遭遇和不良事件进行评估,以确定治疗负担。成本效益分析使用了3年内发生的与总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS)相关的总成本。与PF相比,CROSS方案的治疗负担较低:平均住院天数较短(4.65 ± 10.05对15.14 ± 17.63天;P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信