ArticleCancer management and research2019
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.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01228734 (An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Phase III Trial to Compare Cetuximab in Combination With FOLFOX-4 Versus FOLFOX-4 Alone in the First Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Chinese Subjects With RAS Wild-type Status), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Phase III Trial to Compare Cetuximab in Combination With FOLFOX-4 Versus FOLFOX-4 Alone in the First Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Chinese Subjects With RAS Wild-type Status
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of cetuximab combined with FOLFOX or CAPEOX in first-line treatment of RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter case-control study.Anti-cancer drugs · 2025Article
- EGFR controls transcriptional and metabolic rewiring in KRASEMBO molecular medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Cetuximab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a model-based economic evaluation in Indonesia setting.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Real-World Utilization, Barriers, and Factors Associated With the Targeted Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients in China: A Multi-Center, Hospital-Based Survey Study.International journal of public health · 2023Article
- Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Observational
- Cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX6+Bevacizumab Versus FOLFOX6+Cetuximab in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Patients in Shiraz, Iran.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompared with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) alone, cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 has shown superior performance in terms of efficacy and tolerability in patients with RAS wide-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the TAILOR trial (Trial No.: EMR62202-057; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01228734). Thus, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of these two first-line regimens in patients with RAS wt mCRC from the Chinese societal perspective.
methodsFor the sake of executing the analysis, we used a Markov model containing three health states (progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death) to simulate the process of RAS wt mCRC. The data regarding efficacy and safety were derived from the TAILOR trial. Transition probabilities were converted from the PFS and overall survival (OS) of both groups. Utility scores of the health states were obtained from previously published studies. Costs were computed from the perspective of Chinese society. The primary health outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was utilized to investigate the effect of uncertainties on the Markov model.
resultsTreatment with cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 was estimated to provide an increase in quality adjusted-life years (QALYs) of 0.15 QALYs at an increased cost of $19,079 compared with FOLFOX-4 alone, resulting in an ICER of $127,193/QALY, which exceeded the threshold of willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $27,934/QALY in China. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of PFS in the cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 arm was the most influential factor in the Markov model.
conclusionThe combination of cetuximab and FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective strategy compared with FOLFOX-4 alone for the first-line treatment of patients with RAS wt mCRC from the perspective of Chinese society.
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.