139
Views
16
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Cost–utility analysis of the GC versus MVAC regimens for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer

, , , , , & show all
Pages 27-38 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide. GLOBOCAN5(1), IARC Press, CancerBase Lyon, France (2001).
  • Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int.j Cancer 94(2), 153–156 (2001).
  • Patton SE, Hall MC, Ozen H. Bladder cancer. Cum Opin. Oncol. 14(3), 265–272 (2002).
  • ••A recent, thorough review of standard of care for bladder cancer.
  • von der Maase H, Hansen S, Roberts JT etal Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, Phase Illstudy.j Clin. Oncol 18(17), 3068–3077 (2000).
  • ••Original clinical trial of gemcitabine/ cisplatin versus methotrexate/vinblastine/ doxorubicin/cisplatin.
  • Davey P, Rajan N, De Souza P, Chen J, Schulz M. Examining preferences, utility values and cost-effectiveness for gemcitabine plus cisplatin for the treatment of bladder cancer - a discrete choice conjoint analysis conducted in Australia. Eur. J. Cancer 37\(Suppl. 2), 163 (2001).
  • Brown A, Aristides M, Fitzgerald P, Davey P, Bhalla S, Kielhorn A. Examining preferences and time trade-off utility for gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the treatment of bladder cancer: a survey using discrete choice conjoint analysis in the UK. Poster presentation. International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 5th Annual European Congress. November 2002, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Value Health 5, 543 (2002).
  • ••Conjoint analysis used for the cost-utility analysis.
  • M-TAG UK Limited. Final bladder conjoint analysis study report. Preference and willingness-to-trade-time for advanced bladder cancer treatment: a conjoint analysis in the UK. (2002). (Report on file).
  • Polsky D, Glick HA, Willke R etal Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ. 6(3), 243–252 (1997).
  • Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health EC017. 6(4), 327–340 (1997).
  • ••Describes the construction of nonpararnetric confidence intervals, as used in this cost-utility analysis.
  • Drummond NE, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. (1997).
  • Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ et al Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses and general public. BE Med 300(6737), 1458–1460 (1990).
  • ••Original study that compares responses ofpatients with cancer to matched controls, cancer specialists, general practitioners and cancer nurses for cost-benefit analysis of chemotherapy.
  • Cooper S, Georgiou V. The impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy - perspectives from patients, specialists and nurses. Eur. Cancer 28A(Suppl), S36-S38 (1992). A study comparing the views of hospital specialists, general practitioners and cancer care nurses with patients' perspectives.
  • Study B9E-MC-JHGA Report, data on file. August 1999.

Websites

  • National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2002). Improving outcomes in urological cancer - the research evidence. Section 8. www.nice.org.uk/pdf/ Urological_Research_Evidence.pdf (Accessed February 2004)
  • NHS Executive. (2001). The New NHS: 2001 Reference Costs. www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexec/refcosts.htm (Accessed February 2004)
  • British National Formulary. www.bnf.org (Accessed February 2004)
  • Netten A, Rees T, Harrison G. 2001. Unit costs of health and social care 2001. Personal and Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. www.ukc.ac.uk/PSSRU (Accessed February 2004)
  • National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of trastuzumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer: Technology Appraisal Guidance - No. 34, March 2002. www.nice.org.uldcat.asp?c = 29274 (Accessed February 2004)
  • UK Parliament. House of Commons Health Select Committee second report: Appendix 9 to the minutes of evidence. Memorandum by the King's Fund (NC46) 2002. www.publications.parliament.uldpa/ cm200102/cmselect/cmhealth/515/ 515ap10.htm (Accessed February 2004)

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.