ArticleBMC health services research2020
Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment for HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness of Re-Purposing β-Blockers as an Adjunct Treatment for Women with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Unveiled: Bridging Science, Treatment Strategy, and Economic Aspects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced PD-L1-Positive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer from a Japanese Healthcare Perspective.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of utidelone and capecitabine versus monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Comparative cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive preventive measures for coal workers' pneumoconiosis in China.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Economic Evaluation of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Low Advanced Breast Cancer in the United States.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analyses of Tisagenlecleucel in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia from the Singapore Healthcare System Perspective.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2022Article
- Considerations for Clinical Trials Testing Radiotherapy Combined With Immunotherapy for Metastatic Disease.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2021Review
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Advanced PD-L1 Positive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Japan.Clinical drug investigation · 2021Article
- Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
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
backgroundThe IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective.
methodsA three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs (in Singapore dollars, S$) were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties.
resultsAdding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at S$67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the ICERs remained high even under extremely favourable assumptions.
conclusionsGiven the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent good value for money for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.
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.