ArticleOncotarget2017
RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- 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
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Trial
- CT attenuation of liver metastases before targeted therapy is a prognostic factor of overall survival in colorectal cancer patients. Results from the randomised, open-label FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 trial.European radiology · 2018Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the combination of low-dose nivolumab with triple metronomic chemotherapy for advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing Cetuximab-β and Cetuximab for Chinese patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of companion BRCA testing and adjuvant olaparib treatment in patients with BRCA-mutated high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-country cost-effectiveness analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Infusion of FOLFOX Combined Sorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Portal Vein Invasion.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Article
- Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Gastric Cancer: Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Cetuximab Plus Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) versus FOLFOX-4 in Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from a Chinese medical insurance perspective.
resultsBaseline analysis showed that the addition of cetuximab increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.63, an increase of $17,086 relative to FOLFIRI chemotherapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,145/QALY. When the patient assistance program (PAP) was available, the ICER decreased to $14,049/QALY, which indicated that the cetuximab is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($22,200/QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the median overall survival time for the cetuximab was the most influential parameter.
methodsA Markov model by incorporating clinical, utility and cost data was developed to evaluate the economic outcome of cetuximab in mCRC. The lifetime horizon was used, and sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model results. The impact of PAP was also evaluated in scenario analyses.
conclusionsRAS testing with cetuximab treatment is likely to be cost-effective for patients with mCRC when PAP is available in China.
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.