ReviewPharmacoEconomics2013
Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative cost-effectiveness of sintilimab, toripalimab, and camrelizumab in first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Dynamic and Flexible Survival Models for Extrapolation of Relative Survival: A Case Study and Simulation Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- Time-to-event analysis in economic evaluations: a comparison of modelling methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of transplanting a marginal quality kidney.Health economics review · 2021Article
- How Uncertain is the Survival Extrapolation? A Study of the Impact of Different Parametric Survival Models on Extrapolated Uncertainty About Hazard Functions, Lifetime Mean Survival and Cost Effectiveness.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
- A New Approach for Sampling Ordered Parameters in Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Article
- Treatments for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (mPC): A Review of Costing Evidence.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Review
- Distribution-Weighted Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Lifetime Health Loss.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Article
- Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Review
- Health technology assessment and value: the cancer value label (CAVALA) methodology.Ecancermedicalscience · 2016Article
- Rituximab in combination with corticosteroids for the treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Survival modeling for the estimation of transition probabilities in model-based economic evaluations in the absence of individual patient data: a tutorial.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Recent progress in pharmaceutical therapies for castration-resistant prostate cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2013Review
- Dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: A NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of cabazitaxel (Jevtana®, sanofi-aventis, UK) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence was derived from a multinational randomized open-label phase III trial of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone in men with mHRPC that had progressed during or following treatment with docetaxel. The comparator was mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone. Use of cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, median progression-free survival and time to tumour progression. However, it was also associated with an increased incidence of adverse events such as neutropenia. Utility data were based on interim results from the early access programme for cabazitaxel. Data were only available for a small number of patients with stable disease, resulting in great uncertainty as to the effect of cabazitaxel on quality of life. For their economic evaluation, the manufacturer estimated that the use of cabazitaxel was associated with an incremental cost of £74,908 per QALY gained. However, the ERG disagreed with the manufacturer over two key methodological points. The first concerned modelling and extrapolating survival; the second point was concerned with the choice of patient population. The ERG altered the manufacturer's evaluation to take into account these two points of disagreement. The resulting cost per QALY gained was £82,950. The NICE Appraisal Committee believed the analysis presented by the ERG to be more plausible, and likely to be an underestimate of the cost per QALY. They concluded that whilst the clinical effectiveness of cabazitaxel had been proven, it was not likely to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources and so its use could not be recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.