ArticleMedicine2016
Economic evaluation study (CHEER-compliant): Cost-effectiveness analysis of RAS screening for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on the CALGB 80405 trial.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 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
- Using Genomic Heterogeneity to Inform Therapeutic Decisions for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Application of the Value of Heterogeneity Framework.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Utility and specificity of plasma heat shock protein 90 alpha, CEA, and CA199 as the diagnostic test in colorectal cancer liver metastasis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor TherapyFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of selective first-line use of biologics for unresectableCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- Cost-utility of stereotactic radiation therapyOncotarget · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cetuximab (Cetux)/Bevacizumab (Bev) treatments have shown considerably survival benefits for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the last decade. But they are costly. Currently, no data is available on the health economic implications of testing for extended RAS wild-type (wt) prior to Cetux/Bev treatments of patients with mCRC. This paper aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of predictive testing for extended RAS-wt status in mCRC in the context of targeting the use of Cetux/Bev.Markov model 1 was conducted to provide evidence evaluating the cost-effectiveness of predictive testing for KRAS-wt or extended RAS-wt status based on treatments of chemotherapy plus Cetux/Bev. Markov model 2 assessed the cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX plus Cetux/Bev or FOLFIRI plus Cetux/Bev in extended RAS-wt population. Primary base case data were identified from the CALGB 80405 trial and the literatures. Costs were estimated from West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated.In analysis 1, the cost per QALY was $88,394.09 for KRAS-Cetux, $80,797.82 for KRAS-Bev, $82,590.72 for RAS-Cetux, and $75,358.42 for RAS-Bev. The ICER for RAS-Cetux versus RAS-Bev was $420,700.50 per QALY gained. In analysis 2, the cost per QALY was $81,572.61, $80,856.50, $80,592.22, and $66,794.96 for FOLFOX-Cetux, FOLFOX-Bev, FOLFIRI-Cetux, and FOLFIRI-Bev, respectively. The analyses showed that the extended RAS-wt testing was less costly and more effective versus KRAS-wt testing before chemotherapy plus Cetux/Bev. Furthermore, FOLFIRI plus Bev was the most cost-effective strategy compared with others in extended RAS-wt population.It was economically favorable to identify patients with extended RAS-wt status. Furthermore, FOLFIRI plus Bev was the preferred strategy in extended RAS-wt patients.
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.