ArticleClinical drug investigation2017
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour (GIST) in Germany.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Progression of the tumor in a patient with a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with theJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fourth- or Further-Line Ripretinib in Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo study has compared the cost-effectiveness of active treatment options for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours in patients who progressed on or are intolerant to prior treatment with imatinib and sunitinib. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to imatinib rechallenge in this setting in Germany.
methodsHazard ratios for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge were estimated by indirect comparison. A state distribution model was used to simulate progression, mortality and treatment costs over a lifetime horizon. Drug acquisition costs and utilities were derived from clinical trial data and published literature; non-drug costs were not included. The outcomes measured were treatment costs, life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
resultsThe indirect comparison suggested that median PFS and OS were longer with regorafenib compared to imatinib but results were not statistically significant. Regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge was estimated to have hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.11) for PFS and 0.77 (95% CI 0.34-1.77) for OS, with substantial uncertainty due to the rarity of the disease and small number of patients within the trials. Regorafenib treatment per patient over a lifetime horizon provided an additional 0.61 LYs and 0.42 QALYs over imatinib rechallenge, with additional direct drug costs of €8,773. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €21,127 per QALY gained. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000 per QALY, regorafenib had a 67% probability of being cost-effective.
conclusionBased on the currently available clinical data, this analysis suggests that regorafenib is cost-effective compared with imatinib rechallenge in Germany.
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.