Display options
Cite
Javan-Noughabi J, Rezapour A, Kassani A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer: Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine. J Res Med Sci. 2018;23:57doi: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_644_17.
Javan-Noughabi, J., Rezapour, A., Kassani, A., Hatam, N., & Ahmadloo, N. (2018). The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer: Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine. Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2357. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrms.JRMS_644_17
Javan-Noughabi, Javad, et al. "The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer: Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine." Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences vol. 23 (2018): 57. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/jrms.JRMS_644_17
Javan-Noughabi J, Rezapour A, Kassani A, Hatam N, Ahmadloo N. The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer: Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine. J Res Med Sci. 2018 Jun 06;23:57. doi: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_644_17. eCollection 2018. PMID: 30057641; PMCID: PMC6040151.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Res Med Sci. 2018 Jun 06;23:57. doi: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_644_17. eCollection 2018.

The cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer: Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine.

Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Javad Javan-Noughabi, Aziz Rezapour, Aziz Kassani, Nahid Hatam, Niloofar Ahmadloo

Affiliations

  1. Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  2. Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  3. Department of Community Medicine, Dezful University of Medical Sciences, Dezful, Iran.
  4. Department of Health Administration, School of Management and Information Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
  5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Namazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

PMID: 30057641 PMCID: PMC6040151 DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_644_17

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A decision analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in comparison with paclitaxel and gemcitabine (PG) in women with advanced breast cancer in Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis performed as a cross-sectional study in Namazi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran. Patients were divided into two groups by random numbers, 32 women in the AC group and 32 women in the PG group. The costs were measured using the societal perspective and effectiveness of 2 regimens were assessed using tumor response. By a decision tree, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. In addition, the robustness of results was examined by sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS: The estimated total cost of AC and PG per patient was 1565.23 ± 765.31 and 2099.08 ± 926.99, respectively. Response to treatment in AC and PG arm were 84% versus 75% respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results showed AC is a dominate alternative.

CONCLUSION: Overall, AC was a simple dominate strategy. In other words, AC was estimated to have a lower cost and greater effectiveness than PG.

Keywords: Breast neoplasms; cost-benefit analysis; cyclophosphamide; doxorubicin; paclitaxel

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ann Oncol. 2004 Feb;15(2):201-6 - PubMed
  2. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Sep;5(9):568-74 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Health Econ. 2011 Aug;12(4):311-7 - PubMed
  4. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Oct;66:162-70 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 1;23(28):7098-104 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 15;21(6):976-83 - PubMed
  7. JAMA Oncol. 2015 Jul;1(4):505-27 - PubMed
  8. Curr Oncol. 2011 Dec;18(6):e288-96 - PubMed
  9. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(6):1113-21 - PubMed
  10. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 Jul-Aug;58(4):231-44 - PubMed
  11. J Cancer Res Ther. 2005 Jan-Mar;1(1):21-30 - PubMed
  12. Curr Oncol. 2011 Apr;18(2):67-75 - PubMed
  13. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(10):873-86 - PubMed
  14. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Nov;14(12):1165-74 - PubMed
  15. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jul;45(11):1987-91 - PubMed
  16. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Feb 24;102(4):230-43 - PubMed
  17. Ann Oncol. 2002 Jan;13(1):108-15 - PubMed
  18. Ann Oncol. 2009 Mar;20(3):556-63 - PubMed
  19. Semin Oncol. 2004 Apr;31(2 Suppl 5):31-6 - PubMed
  20. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Jan 20;102(2):82-8 - PubMed
  21. Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):847-860 - PubMed
  22. J Res Med Sci. 2013 Apr;18(4):283-90 - PubMed
  23. J Res Med Sci. 2015 Aug;20(8):751-6 - PubMed
  24. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90 - PubMed
  25. Arch Iran Med. 2010 Mar;13(2):143-6 - PubMed
  26. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2007 Nov;16(6):500-7 - PubMed

Publication Types