Title: Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in
patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
Version: 0 Date: 15 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted analysis regarding treatment cost effectiveness of TAS-102 plus
bevacizumab in advanced CRC. This regimen was investigated in phase 2 study only and
showed promising activity.  Determining cost effectiveness of new regimens, especially those
not supported by phase 3 data, is an important exercise. The study is well conducted. Methods are
well outlined and rationale for certain parameters chosen in analysis is explained. The authors
also have a nice discussion about the limitations of this study and how it relates to costs and
similar analysis in other countries.
Title: Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in
patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
Version: 0 Date: 15 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted analysis regarding treatment cost effectiveness of TAS-102 plus
bevacizumab in advanced CRC. This regimen was investigated in phase 2 study only and
showed promising activity.  Determining cost effectiveness of new regimens, especially those
not supported by phase 3 data, is an important exercise. The study is well conducted. Methods are
well outlined and rationale for certain parameters chosen in analysis is explained. The authors
also have a nice discussion about the limitations of this study and how it relates to costs and
similar analysis in other countries.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in
patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
Version: 0 Date: 15 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors conducted analysis regarding treatment cost effectiveness of TAS-102 plus
bevacizumab in advanced CRC. This regimen was investigated in phase 2 study only and
showed promising activity.  Determining cost effectiveness of new regimens, especially those
not supported by phase 3 data, is an important exercise. The study is well conducted. Methods are
well outlined and rationale for certain parameters chosen in analysis is explained. The authors
also have a nice discussion about the limitations of this study and how it relates to costs and
similar analysis in other countries.
assistant