ArticlePloS one2017
Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab and panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2021Pooled it
- Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Pooled it
- Treatment of Patients With Late-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.JCO global oncology · 2020Guideline
- Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Limited Efficacy of Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies in Colorectal Cancer Patients with Rare RAS Variants: Analysis of the C-CAT Database.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Anticancer Activities of the Quinone-Methide Triterpenes Maytenin and 22-β-hydroxymaytenin Obtained from CultivatedMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCetuximab and panitumumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor. Both drugs are active against RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer after chemotherapy failure, with similar efficacy and toxicity profiles. However, their cost and limited survival benefits may compromise incorporation in the Brazilian public healthcare system, the Unified Heath System (Sistema Único de Saúde) (SUS).
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from the Brazilian Public health perspective and a lifetime horizon in patients with RAS -wt mCRC. Transition probabilities and mortality rates were extracted from randomized studies. Treatment costs were obtained from price tables regulated by the Brazilian Health Ministry. The World Health Organization recommendation of three times GDP per capita was used to define the cost-effectiveness threshold.
resultsThe use of cetuximab or panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory mCRC patients resulted in 0.22 additional life-years relative to BSC, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $58,240 and $52,772 per LY, respectively. That exceeds the pre-specified threshold for cost-effectiveness. Acquisition of biological agents was the major driver of increased costs.
conclusionsOur economic evaluation demonstrates that both cetuximab and panitumumab are not a cost-effective approach in RAS-wt mCRC patients. Discussion about drug price should be prioritized to enable incorporation of these monoclonal antibodies in the SUS.
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.