ArticleCancer biology & therapy2015
Cost-effectiveness of RAS screening before monoclonal antibodies therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer based on FIRE3 Study.
Article in Cancer biology & therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2021Pooled it
- How are we evaluating the cost-effectiveness of companion biomarkers for targeted cancer therapies? A systematic review.BMC cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Pooled it
- Economic Value of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Cancer Drugs with Clinically Relevant Drug-Gene Associations: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Pooled it
- Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of long-course oxaliplatin and bolus of fluorouracil based preoperative chemoradiotherapy vs. 5x5Gy radiation plus FOLFOX4 for locally advanced resectable rectal cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line FOLFIRI Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterTrial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuing bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone after first progression of metastatic colorectal cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Cetuximab Plus Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Consequences of Biomarker Analysis on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab in Combination with FOLFIRI as a First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personalised Medicine at Work.Applied health economics and health policy · 2018Article
- Tumour heterogeneity: principles and practical consequences.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surprising results published by FIRE-3 revealed that the overall survival (OS) of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with Cetuximab(Cmab) and FOLFIRI combination was prolonged to 33.1 months. The substantial increase in testing and treatment costs, however, impose a considerable health burden on patients and society. Hence the study was aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RAS screening before monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) therapy based on FIRE-3 study. Four groups were analyzed: group 1, patients with KRAS testing treated with Cmab and FOLFIRI; group 2, patients with RAS testing treated with Cmab and FOLFIRI; group 3, patients with KRAS testing treated with bevacizumab(Bmab) and FOLFIRI; group 4, patients with RAS testing treated with Bmab and FOLFIRI. A Markov model comprising 3 health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease and death) was built. The costs were calculated from a Chinese payer perspective, and survival was reported in quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs). Average total lifetime costs ranged from $104,682.44 (RAS-Bmab) to $136,867.44 (RAS-Cmab), while the survival gained varied from 16.88 QALMs in RAS-Bmab to 21.85 QALMs in RAS-Cmab. The cost per QALM was $6,263.86 for RAS-Cmab, $6,145.84 for KRAS-Bmab, $6,201.57 for RAS-Bmab and $6,960.70 for KRAS-Cmab respectively. The KRAS-Cmab strategy was dominated by the other 3 groups. The first-treatment cost of RAS-Cmab was the most influential one to the model. In all, the RAS screening prior to Cmab treatment in mCRC seems to be a cost-effective strategy in the time of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) therapy with the most gained QALMs.
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.