ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2013
Cost-effectiveness analysis review of exemestane in the treatment of primary and advanced breast cancer.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric Analysis of The Global Research Trends on The Application of Tamoxifen in The Treatment of Breast Cancer Over The Past 50 Years.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2025Review
- Article
- Meroxest improves the prognosis of immunocompetent C57BL/6 mice with allografts of E0771 mouse breast tumor cells.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2016Article
- Prognostic factors of breast cancer liver metastasis surgery.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2015Article
- Consistent defined threshold and equity in health.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2015Article
- Cystic breast lesions by conventional ultrasonography: sonographic subtype-pathologic correlation and BI-RADS Assessment.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExemestane was approved in 2005 for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess whether it is cost-effective in comparison to available alternatives. MATERIAL AND
methodsTo evaluate the efficacy of exemestane, a systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases. The outcomes of interest were "clinical benefit", "overall response" and "disease-free survival rate". To evaluate the cost of treatments, costs of both domestic generic and imported brand medicines were taken into account, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for each comparison.
resultsRegarding primary breast cancer, based upon available evidence, exemestane could not be considered as a cost-effective medicine either in generic or brand form compared with placebo (ICER: 119,100 and 215,525), with tamoxifen after 2-3 years of therapy (ICER: 35,150 and 82,400) and with sequential treatment by tamoxifen and exemestane (dominated because of lower effectiveness and higher cost). In metastatic breast cancer, exemestane was not considered a cost-effective treatment compared with both anastrozole and megestrol acetate (dominated) and was highly cost-effective compared with tamoxifen (ICERs: 2,208 and 4,326 dollars per one more patient with an overall response for generic and brand medicines) although even in this case it was not cost-effective in terms of the 1-year survival rates (dominated).
conclusionsRegarding current evidence and related costs in terms of Iranian pharmaceutical market prices, exemestane could not be considered a cost-effective treatment in primary and advanced breast cancer compared with available alternatives. However, more evidence is still needed for more certain decisions.
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.