Trial reportBMJ open2020
Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. 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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled 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
- Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer with Chromosomal Instability: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for a Novel Precision Treatment Approach in Germany, Ireland and Spain.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of newly approved cetuximab biosimilars for first-line treatment of RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer in China: an economic evaluation based on network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
- TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-country cost-effectiveness analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab vs. monotherapy for third-line treatment of colorectal cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Cetuximab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a model-based economic evaluation in Indonesia setting.BMC cancer · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China.
designA cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
participantsThe included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC.
interventionsFirst-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsBaseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY.
conclusionsDespite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results.
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.