Appendix KExcluded health economic papers
- 1.
Andresen S, et al. The impact of high-dose chemotherapy, autologous stem cell transplant and conventional chemotherapy on quality of life of long-term survivors with follicular lymphoma.
Leukemia and Lymphoma. 2012;53(3):386–393. Reason for exclusion: QOL over- cross referred to clinical evidence review. [
PubMed: 21864036]
- 2.
Athanasakis K, et al. Rituximab Sc Vs Rituximab Iv for non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas (Nhls): an Economic Evaluation for the Greek Healthcare System. Value in Health. 2015;18(7):A444. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to any PICO – cost-minimisation analysis of different modes of rituximab delivery.
- 3.
Auweiler PW, et al. Cost effectiveness of rituximab for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(7):537–49. [Review]
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on rituximab CE studies overview. [
PubMed: 22612993]
- 4.
Beveridge R, et al. Economic impact of disease progression in follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Leukemia & Lymphoma. 2011;52(11):2117–23. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- not specific to IIA/first line treatment. [
PMC free article: PMC3211193] [
PubMed: 21745172]
- 5.
Blaes AH, et al. Quality of life appears similar between survivors of indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Leukemia & Lymphoma. 2011;52(11):2105–10. Reason for exclusion: Not economic paper reports QOL of long term survivors only. [
PMC free article: PMC4499509] [
PubMed: 21740095]
- 6.
Blommestein HM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of rituximab as maintenance treatment for relapsed follicular lymphoma: results of a population-based study.
European Journal of Haematology. 2014;92(5):398–406. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO-focus on rituximab as maintenance treatment in relapsed/refractory FL who responded to second line chemotherapy. [
PubMed: 24400940]
- 7.
Boland A, et al. Rituximab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Sep;13 Suppl 2:41–8. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on use of rituximab in relapsed or refractory stage III or IV with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. [
PubMed: 19804688]
- 8.
Braga, et al. 2010. Reason for exclusion: Not specific PICO- not specific to IIA/ or to first line.
- 9.
Castro Gomez AJ, et al. [Cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance therapy with rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma responding to induction therapy at the first line].
Revista Espanola de Salud Publica. 2012;86(2):163–76. [Spanish]
Reason for exclusion: Not specific PICO- not specific to IIA/ [
PubMed: 22991059]
- 10.
Chan KK, et al. Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy.
Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(10):1064–71. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focus on use of GCSF with curative intent chemotherapy. [
PubMed: 22393098]
- 11.
Chen Q, et al. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy consolidation versus observation following first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma.
Value in Health. 2015;18(2):189–97. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to any PICO – rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy consolidation for people with FL in first remission. [
PMC free article: PMC4363091] [
PubMed: 25773554]
- 12.
Chrischilles EA, et al. Impact of age and colony-stimulating factor use on hospital length of stay for febrile neutropenia in CHOP-treated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Cancer Control. 2002;9(3):203–11. Reason for exclusion: Cost only paper-not specific to PICOs- focus on neutropenia costs. [
PubMed: 12060818]
- 13.
Compaci G, et al. Effectiveness of telephone support during chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma: the Ambulatory Medical Assistance (AMA) experience.
International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2011;48(8):926–32. Reason for exclusion: Not an economic paper. [
PubMed: 21349519]
- 14.
Deconinck E, et al. Cost effectiveness of rituximab maintenance therapy in follicular lymphoma: long-term economic evaluation.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(1):35–46. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- not specific to IIA/first line treatment. [
PubMed: 20014875]
- 15.
Dewilde S1, Woods B, Castaigne JG, Parker C, Dunlop W. Bendamustine-rituximab: a cost-utility analysis in first-line treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in England and Wales.
Journal of Medical Economics. 2014;17(2):111–24. Reason for exclusion: Not specific PICO- not specific to IIA/looks at bendamustine. [
PubMed: 24308372]
- 16.
Doorduijn J, Buijt I, van der Holt B, Steijaert M, Uyl-de Groot C, Sonneveld P. Self-reported quality of life in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with CHOP chemotherapy.
European Journal of Haematology. 2005;75:116–123. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- reports QOL/QALYs only. [
PubMed: 16000127]
- 17.
Doorduijn JK, et al. Economic evaluation of prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor during chemotherapy in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Haematologica. 2004;89(9):1109–17. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on GCSF during chemotherapy in elderly patients with aggressive NHL. [
PubMed: 15377472]
- 18.
Doss S, et al. NICE guidance on rituximab for first-line treatment of symptomatic stage III-IV follicular lymphoma in previously untreated patients.
Lancet Oncology. 2012;13(2):128–30. Reason for exclusion: Report of NICE appraisal TA 243of rituximab as first line treatment. [
PubMed: 22403811]
- 19.
Dranitsaris G, Altmayer C, Quirt I. Cost-benefit analysis of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during CHOP antineoplastic therapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;11(6):566–77. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on GCSF during CHOP for NHL. [
PubMed: 10173030]
- 20.
Dundar Y, et al. Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Health Technology Assessment Database. 2009;3:23. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focus on ERG report on to CE of rituximab in combination with CVP Vs. CVP in first line treatment. [
PubMed: 19567210]
- 21.
Errante D, Vaccher E, Tirelli U. Are hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors useful in association with chemotherapy in the treatment of HIV-related non-Hodgkin's lymphomas?
Annals of Oncology. 1996;7(3):233–37. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on use of GCSF in HIV related NHL. [
PubMed: 8740785]
- 22.
Fagnoni P, et al. Cost effectiveness of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support as initial treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(1):55–68. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focused on first-line treatment for transplantation in FL – does not meet topic H. [
PubMed: 19178124]
- 23.
Ferrara F, Ravasio R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of rituximab to CHOP in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma.
Clinical Drug Investigation. 2008;28(1):55–65. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on young patients receiving rituximab with CHOP in good prognosis DLBCL. [
PubMed: 18081361]
- 24.
Ramos Font C, Rebollo-Aguirre AC, Villegas Portero R. Utility of 90Y-Ibritumomab Tiuxetan (Zevalin) in the treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Health Technology Assessment Database. 2010;3 (Structured abstract) Reason for exclusion: Spanish TA- focus on radioimmunotherapy in NHL – executive summary only available in English.
- 25.
Foster T, et al. Economic burden of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Pharmacoeconomics
. 2009;27(8):657–79. Reason for exclusion: Review (non-systematic) –review of different treatments and across NHL types/stages. [
PubMed: 19712009]
- 26.
Greenhalgh J, et al. Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(5):403–13. Reason for exclusion: Reports NICE TA appraisal-not specific to IIA. [
PMC free article: PMC3654180] [
PubMed: 23576017]
- 27.
Griffiths RI, et al. Impact on medical cost, cumulative survival, and cost-effectiveness of adding rituximab to first-line chemotherapy for follicular lymphoma in elderly patients: an observational cohort study based on SEER-medicare.
Journal of Cancer Epidemiology. 2012;2012 (Provisional abstract) 978391.3.
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- not specific to IIA. [
PMC free article: PMC3434403] [
PubMed: 22969803]
- 28.
Griffiths RI, et al. Comparative effectiveness and cost of adding rituximab to first-line chemotherapy for elderly patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Cancer. 2012;118(24):6079–88. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focus on addition of rituximab to first-line chemotherapy. [
PubMed: 22648454]
- 29.
Groot MT, Lugtenburg PJ, Hornberger J, Huijgens PC, Uyl-de Groot CA. Cost-effectiveness of rituximab (MabThera®) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the Netherlands.
European Journal of Haematology. 2005;74:194–202. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOS- focus on Rituximab with CHOP vs. CHOP in DCLBC. [
PubMed: 15693788]
- 30.
Gruschkus Sk, et al. Cost-effectiveness of white blood cell growth factor use among a large nationwide cohort of elderly non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients treated with chemotherapy.
Value in Health. 2011;14(2):253–62. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on sue of prophylaxis CSF in elderly NHL patient receiving chemotherapy. [
PubMed: 21402294]
- 31.
Hackshaw A, Sweetenham J, Knight A. Are prophylactic haematopoietic growth factors of value in the management of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma?
British Journal of Cancer. 2004;90(7):1302–05. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on GCSF. [
PMC free article: PMC2409679] [
PubMed: 15054445]
- 32.
Hagemeister FB. ‘Watch and wait’ as initial management for patients with follicular lymphomas: still a viable strategy?
Biodrugs. 2012;26(6):363–76. [Review]
Reason for exclusion: Not an economic paper. [
PubMed: 23057946]
- 33.
Hara T, et al. Low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor overcomes neutropenia in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with higher cost-effectiveness.
International Journal of Hematology. 2005;82(5):430–36. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs focus on GCSF with chemotherapy. [
PubMed: 16533747]
- 34.
Hashino S, et al. Cost benefit and clinical efficacy of low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after standard chemotherapy in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology. 2008;30(4):292–99. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on GCSF after standard chemotherapy. [
PubMed: 18665826]
- 35.
Hornberger JC, Best JH. Cost utility in the United States of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone for the treatment of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Cancer. 2005;103(8):1644–51. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focus on addition of rituximab to CHOP in DCBCL- entered into model at first line (event-free) [
PubMed: 15756658]
- 36.
Hornberger J, et al. Economic evaluation of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone for advanced follicular lymphoma.
Leukemia and Lymphoma. 2008;49(2):227–36. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focus on addition of rituximab to CVP in patients with advanced F. [
PMC free article: PMC2430747] [
PubMed: 18231908]
- 37.
Hornberger J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of rituximab as maintenance therapy in patients with follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma after responding to first-line rituximab plus chemotherapy.
Leukemia & Lymphoma. 2012;53(12):2371–77. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to any PICO – rituximab maintenance in FL. [
PubMed: 22591119]
- 38.
Hui J, Przespo E, Elefante A. Pralatrexate: a novel synthetic antifolate for relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma and other potential uses.
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice. 2012;18(2):275–83. [Review]
Reason for exclusion: Not an economic paper. [
PubMed: 21956523]
- 39.
Jerijs, et al. 1999. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO included acute lymphoblastic lymphoma-cost analysis only.
- 40.
Johnston KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the addition of rituximab to CHOP chemotherapy in first-line treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in a population-based observational cohort in British Columbia, Canada.
Value in Health. 2010;13(6):703–11. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- addition of ritiuximab to CHOP in DLBCL. [
PubMed: 20561333]
- 41.
Johnston KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of rituximab in follicular lymphoma.
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2012;12(5):569–77. [Review]
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focus on rituximab in addition to chemotherapy- review. [
PubMed: 23140274]
- 42.
Kasteng F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of maintenance rituximab treatment after second line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma in Sweden.
Acta Oncologica. 2008;47(6):1029–36. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOS- stage not defined, focus on rituximab after second line treatment with. [
PubMed: 18607857]
- 43.
Khera N, et al. Costs of second allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.
Transplantation. 2013;96(1):108–115. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- looked at impact of different clinical characteristics on costs of allogeneic transplantation- no specific NHL-leukaemia/MDS or lymphoma /MM or other included. [
PMC free article: PMC3696423] [
PubMed: 23694949]
- 44.
Khor S, et al. Real world costs and cost-effectiveness of Rituximab for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients: a population-based analysis.
BMC Cancer. 2014;14:586. Reason for exclusion: Compares R-CHOP to CHOP, no transplantation. [
PMC free article: PMC4148552] [
PubMed: 25117912]
- 45.
Knight C, et al. Rituximab (MabThera(R)) for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: systematic review and economic evaluation.
Health Technology Assessment Database. 2004;3:1. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO-SHARR model to look at R-CHOP vs. CHOP based on ROCHE model. [
PubMed: 15361313]
- 46.
Kymes SM, et al. Economic evaluation of plerixafor for stem cell mobilization.
American Journal of Managed Care. 2012;18(1):33–41. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focus on addition of GCSF + plerixafor vs. GCSF alone prior to stem cell mobilisation. [
PMC free article: PMC3650087] [
PubMed: 22435747]
- 47.
Leahy MF, Turner JH, et al. Radioimmunotherapy of relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma with 131I-rituximab in routine clinical practice: 10-year single-institution experience of 142 consecutive patients.
Blood. 2011;117(1):45–52. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOS compares I-rituximab versus rituximab. [
PubMed: 20864582]
- 48.
Lee SM, et al. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim) following high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell rescue in high-grade non-Hodgkins lymphoma: clinical benefits at no extra cost.
British Journal of Cancer. 1998;77(8):1294–99. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focused on GCSF treatment. [
PMC free article: PMC2150159] [
PubMed: 9579836]
- 49.
Lee S, et al. Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving CHOP chemotherapy treatment without adversely affecting their quality of life: cost-benefit and quality of life analysis.
Supportive Care in Cancer. 2013;21(3):841–46. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- focused on GCSF treatment. [
PubMed: 22972488]
- 50.
LeGouill S, et al. High response rate after 4 courses of R-DHAP in untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) patients in the ongoing phase III randomized GOELAMS and GELA LyMa Trial. Blood. 2010:16. Reason for exclusion: Not an economic paper- cross referred to clinical evidence review selection.
- 51.
Limat S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CD34(+) dose in peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: a single centre study.
Bone Marrow Transplantation. 2000;25(9):997–1002. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO not FL specific. [
PubMed: 10800070]
- 52.
Limat S, et al. Effect of cell determinant (CD)34(+) cell dose on the cost and consequences of peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients in front-line therapy.
European Journal of Cancer. 2000;36(18):2360–67. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO not FL specific. [
PubMed: 11094310]
- 53.
Messori A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in patients with relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Bone Marrow Transplantation. 1997;19(3):275–81. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- type of NHL not defined. [
PubMed: 9028558]
- 54.
Micallef IN, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-adapted algorithm of plerixafor use for autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization.
Biology of Blood & Marrow Transplantation. 2013;19(1):87–93. Reason for exclusion: Not relevant to PICO- not NHL specific. [
PubMed: 22922211]
- 55.
Moulin-Romsee, et al. 2008. Reason for exclusion: Reports costs but no quality of life data; early treatment-response assessment.
- 56.
Ibritumomab tiuxetan for NHL - horizon scanning review. Health Technology Assessment Database. 2002;3:4. (Structured abstract) Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- horizon scanning- no cost effectiveness evidence presented- cost of drug only presented.
- 57.
Temsirolimus (Torisel) for mantle cell lymphoma - relapsed and/or refractory: horizon scanning technology briefing. Health Technology Assessment Database. 2009;3 (Project record) Reason for exclusion: Not relevant to PICOs- horizon scanning of Bortezomub in relapsed. Refractory FL- cost of drug only presented.
- 58.
NICE technology appraisal guidance (TA65). Rituximab for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Reason for exclusion: Existing NICE guidance.
- 59.
Olin RL, et al. Determinants of the optimal first-line therapy for follicular lymphoma: A decision analysis.
Am J Hematol. 2010 Apr;85(4):255–260. Reason for exclusion: Not specific PICO- not specific to IIA/ [
PMC free article: PMC2932442] [
PubMed: 20196173]
- 60.
Papaioannou D, et al. Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III-IV follicular lymphoma (review of Technology Appraisal 110): a systematic review and economic evaluation.
Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 2012;16(37):1–253. [Review]
Reason for exclusion: TA review- Rituximab for first line treatment. [
PubMed: 23021127]
- 61.
Pohar R, Clark M, Nkansah E. Radioimmunotherapies for non-hodgkin lymphoma: systematic review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines. Health Technology Assessment Database. 2009;3 (Structured abstract) Reason for exclusion: Canadian agency for drugs and technologies in health report-not specific to PICOs –focus on radio immunotherapies in NHL in general.
- 62.
Prajogo J, et al. Modelling cost-effectiveness of high-dose chemotherapy as treatment for relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in an Australian setting.
Internal Medicine Journal. 2009;39(8):519–26. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- NHL in general- focused on high dose vs. standard chemotherapy. [
PubMed: 19732200]
- 63.
Ray JA, et al. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of rituximab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the UK.
Value in Health. 2010;13(4):346–57. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Abstract- duplication of paper below. [
PubMed: 20070643]
- 64.
Ray JA, Carr E, Lewis G, Marcus R. An Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Rituximab in Combination with Chemotherapy for the First-Line Treatment of Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in the UK.
Value in Health. 2010;13:346–357. Reason for exclusion: Not specific PICO- not specific to IIA/ [
PubMed: 20070643]
- 65.
Sabater, et al. [year unknown- abstract] Reason for exclusion: Not specific PICO- not specific to IIA/
- 66.
Samaras P, et al. Equivalence of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in lymphoma patients treated with BEAM followed by autologous stem cell transplantation.
Oncology. 2010;79(1-2):93–97. (Provisional abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to NHL- reports resource use/cost summary only. [
PubMed: 21079406]
- 67.
Schulman KA, et al. Prospective economic evaluation accompanying a trial of GM-CSF/IL-3 in patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation for Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins-lymphoma.
Bone Marrow Transplantation. 1998;21(6):607–14. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- includes Hodgkin's Lymphoma. [
PubMed: 9543065]
- 68.
Smith TJ, et al. Economic analysis of a randomized clinical trial to compare filgrastim-mobilized peripheral-blood progenitor-cell transplantation and autologous bone marrow transplantation in patients with Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1997;15(1):5–10. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not relevant to PICO- HL +NHL. [
PubMed: 8996118]
- 69.
Soini EJ, Martikainen JA, Nousiainen T. Treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with or without rituximab: cost-effectiveness and value of information based on a 5-year follow-up.
Annals of Oncology. 2011;22(5):1189–97. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- stage not clear (abstract- duplicates paper below) [
PMC free article: PMC3082160] [
PubMed: 21135053]
- 70.
Soini EJ, Martikainen JA, Nousiainen T. Treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with or without rituximab: cost-effectiveness and value of information based on a 5-year follow-up.
Annals of Oncology. 2011;22(5):1189–97. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- stage not clear. [
PMC free article: PMC3082160] [
PubMed: 21135053]
- 71.
Soini EJ, et al. Economic evaluation of sequential treatments for follicular non-hodgkin lymphoma.
Clinical Therapeutics. 2012;34(4):915–25. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- not specific to IIA/first line treatment. [
PubMed: 22459623]
- 72.
Sweetenham J, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the UK.
British Journal of Haematology. 1999;106(1):47–54. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- focus on indolent relapsed B cell lymphoma and comparison of CHOP or fluradarbine with rituximab. [
PubMed: 10444162]
- 73.
Uyl-de-Groot CA, et al. Costs of peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation using whole blood mobilised by filgrastim as compared with autologous bone marrow transplantation in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(3):305–11. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO-focused on ABMT versus whole blood transplantation – cost analysis only. [
PubMed: 10537437]
- 74.
Uyl-de-Groot CA, et al. Costs of introducing autologous BMT in the treatment of lymphoma and acute leukaemia in The Netherlands.
Bone Marrow Transplant
. 1995 Apr;15(4):605–10. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs- NHL type unclear. [
PubMed: 7655388]
- 75.
Van Agthoven M, et al. Cost analysis and quality of life assessment comparing patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation or autologous bone marrow transplantation for refractory or relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or Hodgkin's disease. a prospective randomised trial.
Eur J Cancer
. 2001;37(14):1781–9. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- covered Hodgkin's lymphoma as well as NHL- cost analysis and QOL reported as disaggregated outcomes. [
PubMed: 11549432]
- 76.
Van Agthoven M, et al. Cost analysis of common treatment options for indolent follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Haematologica. 2005 January;90(10):1422–1432. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO- cost analysis across disease pathway. [
PubMed: 16219580]
- 77.
Wake B, et al. Rituximab as third-line treatment for refractory or recurrent Stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
Health Technology Assessment Database. 2002;3:1. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO Focus on rituximab as 3rd line treatment. [
PubMed: 12022936]
- 78.
Weycker D, et al. Economic costs of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in European and Australian clinical practice.
BMC Cancer. 2012;12:362. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to any PICO- focus on neutropenia. [
PMC free article: PMC3488560] [
PubMed: 22913768]
- 79.
Wirt DP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interferon alfa-2b added to chemotherapy for high-tumor-burden follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Leukemia and Lymphoma. 2001;40(5-6):565–79. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICO or first line treatment. [
PubMed: 11426529]
- 80.
Woronoff-Lemsi MC, et al. Cost comparative study of autologous peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) and bone marrow (ABM) transplantations for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients.
Bone Marrow Transplantation. 1997;20(11):975–82. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs. [
PubMed: 9422478]
- 81.
Yakushijin Y, et al. Usage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor every 2days is clinically useful and cost-effective for febrile neutropenia during early courses of chemotherapy.
International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011;16(2):118–24. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs-focus on treatment of febrile neutropenia. [
PubMed: 20924633]
- 82.
Zumberg MS, et al. GM-CSF versus G-CSF: engraftment characteristics, resource utilization, and cost following autologous PBSC transplantation.
Cytotherapy. 2002;4(6):531–38. (Structured abstract)
Reason for exclusion: Not specific to PICOs – included multiple myeloma and Hodgkin's lymphoma. [
PubMed: 12568989]
- 83.
Zurawska U, et al. Hepatitis B virus screening before chemotherapy for lymphoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30(26):3167–73. Reason for exclusion: Not specific to any PICO- focus on Hep B screening prior to chemotherapy in DLBCL. [
PubMed: 22711851]
