ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Cost-effectiveness of palbociclib in early breast cancer patients with a high risk of relapse: Results from the PENELOPE-B trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic assessment of abemaciclib for the adjuvant treatment of luminal HER2- breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish health system.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- The G Protein Estrogen Receptor (GPER) is involved in the resistance to the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in breast cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 15 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are at a high risk of relapse. PENELOPE-B was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial that investigated adding palbociclib (PAL) for thirteen 28-day cycles to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) in these patients. Clinical results showed no significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival with PAL. Methods: We performed a pre-planned cost-effectiveness analysis of PAL within PENELOPE-B from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. Health-related quality of life scores, collected in the trial using the EQ-5D-3L instrument, were converted to utilities based on the German valuation algorithm. Resource use was valued using German price weights. Outcomes were discounted at 3% and modeled with mixed-level linear models to adjust for attrition, repeated measurements, and residual baseline imbalances. Subgroup analyses were performed for key prognostic risk factors. Scenario analyses addressed data limitations and evaluated the robustness of the estimated cost-effectiveness of PAL to methodological choices. Results: The effects of PAL on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were marginal during the active treatment phase, increasing thereafter to 0.088 (95% confidence interval: -0.001; 0.177) QALYs gained over the 4 years of follow-up. The incremental costs were dominated by PAL averaging EUR 33,000 per patient; costs were higher in the PAL arm but not significantly different after the second year. At an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 380,000 per QALY gained, PAL was not cost-effective compared to the standard-of-care ET. Analyses restricted to Germany and other subgroups were consistent with the main results. Findings were robust in the scenarios evaluated. Conclusions: One year of PAL added to ET is not cost-effective in women with residual invasive disease after NACT in Germany.
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.