Fig 4.

Comparison of phase-specific and total cost of treatment for APL-ATO and APL-CT. (A) Represents the contribution of cost activities (chemotherapy administration and treatment of complications, supportive care-blood transfusions and G-CSF administration, and laboratory and imaging) to the mean cost of treatment during induction phase. Comparison across three different protocols is shown. APL-ATO (n = 30) received induction with ATO-based regimen, APL-CT (n = 30) received induction with standard 3 + 7 regimen and R-APL (n = 16) are relapsed patients who received reinduction using generic ATO-based phase II clinical trial. (B) Represents the contribution of cost activities to the mean cost of treatment during consolidation phase. Comparison across three different protocols is shown. APL-ATO (n = 26, 4 early deaths during induction excluded) received one cycle of consolidation with ATO-based regimen and APL-CT (n = 30) received three cycles of consolidation with high dose cytarabine regimen. R-APL (n = 16) are relapsed patients who received consolidation with ATO-based phase II clinical trial followed by autologous transplant. (C) Represents the contribution of cost activities to the mean cost of treatment during maintenance phase. Comparison across three different protocols is shown. APL-ATO (n = 26, n = 4 early deaths during induction excluded) received six cycles of maintenance (each cycle for 28 days) with ATO-based regimen; APL-CT did not receive maintenance; and R-APL (n = 16) are relapsed patients who received maintenance on the ATO-based clinical trial for six cycles. (D) Total and phase-specific treatment cost for the three different protocols are compared. For all comparisons, P < 0 05 is considered significant. Three-way anova was used for statistical comparison.