Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28689361›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2017

Reviewing the quality, health benefit and value for money of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer.

Xavier Ghislain Léon Victor Pouwels, Bram L T Ramaekers, Manuela A Joore

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Interventions.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xavier Ghislain Léon Victor PouwelsDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI) of the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences of Maastricht University (FHML), Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. xavier.pouwels@mumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3563-0013
Bram L T RamaekersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI) of the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences of Maastricht University (FHML), Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Manuela A JooreDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI) of the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences of Maastricht University (FHML), Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo provide an overview of model characteristics and outcomes of model-based economic evaluations concerning chemotherapy and targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC); to assess the quality of the studies; to analyse the association between model characteristics and study quality and outcomes.

methodsPubMED and NHS EED were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English or Dutch language, model-based economic evaluation, chemotherapy or TT as intervention, population diagnosed with MBC, published between 2000 and 2014, reporting life years (LY) or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. General characteristics, model characteristics and outcomes of the studies were extracted. Quality of the studies was assessed through a checklist.

results24 studies were included, considering 50 comparisons (20 concerning chemotherapy and 30 TT). Seven comparisons were represented in multiple studies. A health state-transition model including the following health states: stable/progression-free disease, progression and death was used in 18 studies. Studies fulfilled on average 14 out of the 26 items of the quality checklist, mostly due to a lack of transparency in reporting. Thirty-one per cent of the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. TT led to higher iQALY gained, and industry-sponsored studies reported more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes.

conclusionsThe development of a disease-specific reference model would improve the transparency and quality of model-based cost-effectiveness assessments for MBC treatments. Incremental health benefits increased over time, but were outweighed by the increased treatment costs. Consequently, increased health benefits led to lower value for money.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisMolecular Targeted TherapyQuality of Health CareBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansModels, TheoreticalNeoplasm MetastasisOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality Assurance, Health CareBreast neoplasmsCost-benefit analysisEconomicModelsNeoplasm metastasisQuality-adjusted life-yearsReview

Identifiers

PMID28689361
PMCPMC5602061
OpenAlexW2727708535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.