ArticleJAMA dermatology2020
Frontline BRAF Testing-Guided Treatment for Advanced Melanoma in the Era of Immunotherapies: A Cost-Utility Analysis Based on Long-term Survival Data.
Article in JAMA dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Adverse Event Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anticancer Drugs: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- A comparative review of economic evaluations for immune checkpoint inhibitors in early stage and advanced stage cancer: focusing on pembrolizumab.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted treatment in combination as adjuvant treatment of patient with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment Strategies for Advanced Melanoma in Real Life in France.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Donafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China.Advances in therapy · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of 12 First-Line Treatments for Patients With Advanced EGFR Mutated NSCLC in the United Kingdom and China.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Ipilimumab Plus Anti-PD-1 TherapyFrontiers in oncology · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and BRAF and MEK inhibitors has improved advanced melanoma recovery. However, it is unknown whether these novel therapies are cost-effective for newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF status. Objective: To compare the cost-utility of these novel agents and their combinations with or without BRAF gene testing guidance for treating newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF status. Design and Setting: A decision-analytic model was adopted to project the outcomes of 8 strategies containing different ICIs and BRAF and MEK inhibitors for newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF pathogenic variant status. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate 067, KEYNOTE-006, COMBI-d, and COMBI-v trials, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs were estimated from the US payer perspective. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net health benefits were calculated. Subgroup, 1-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Of the 8 competing strategies, nivolumab plus ipilimumab without patient selection based on BRAF pathogenic variant testing yielded the most significant health outcome, and the nivolumab strategy was the cheapest option. The nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab strategies formed the cost-effective frontier, which showed the ordered ICURs were $8593 (SD, $592 995)/QALY for pembrolizumab vs nivolumab and $125 593 (SD, $5 751 223)/QALY for nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs pembrolizumab. Other strategies, including the BRAF testing-guided strategies (BRAF pathogenic variant testing followed by corresponding regimens for BRAF wild and pathogenic variant tumors), were dominated or extended dominated. The most influential parameters were the treatment efficacy of these new regimens. Conclusions and Relevance: For newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF pathogenic variant status, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab strategies are likely to be the most cost-effective options. BRAF and MEK inhibitors might be productively placed in a second-line setting after BRAF pathogenic variant is confirmed.
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.