ArticlePloS one2017
Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom.
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 12 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Treatments for renal cell carcinoma: NICE Pilot Treatment Pathways Appraisal.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Temporary treatment cessation compared with continuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for adults with renal cancer: the STAR non-inferiority RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Scoping Review of Economic Analyses of Rare Kidney Diseases.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- The national budget impact of managed entry agreement strategies match with high-cost drugs to maximise drug cost saving: a study protocol.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of the First Line Treatment Options For Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in India.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the U.S.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Cancer drug development: The missing links.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019Review
- Economic Burden of Renal Cell Carcinoma-Part I: An Updated Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Review
- Imaging for the diagnosis and response assessment of renal tumours.World journal of urology · 2018Review
- Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy in advanced renal-cell carcinoma.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.
methodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.
resultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (-£1,061, 95% CrI: -£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsPazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.
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.