ArticleBMJ open2022
Neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine as the third-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neratinib for HER2-positive breast cancer with an overlooked option.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023Review
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
objectiveNeratinib plus capecitabine (Ner+Cap) were proved to be clinically beneficial as a third-line treatment for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Ner+Cap from the Chinese healthcare perspective.
designA three-state Markov simulation model was performed based on the results of NALA trial. The utilities of health state and disutilities of adverse events were derived from the published literature. Direct costs of anticancer agents, drug administration, routine follow-up and serious adverse events management were calculated in the model. Uncertainty was evaluated through univariate and probability sensitivity analysis.
participantsPatients with confirmed HER2-positive MBC who previously received at least two HER2-targeted treatments and were aged ≥18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. A total of 621 patients were enrolled in the NALA trial.
interventionsThird-line treatment with Ner+Cap or lapatinib plus capecitabine (Lap+Cap).
main outcome measuresThe primary health outcomes of the model were costs, expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsWhen compared with Lap+Cap, Ner+Cap provided an additional 0.431 LYs and 0.339 QALYs, and increased the cost by $4299.2. The corresponding ICERs were 9970.1/LY and $12 670.2/QALY. Univariate sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were generally robust. Besides, Ner+Cap had a 100% probability of being cost-effective according to probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
conclusionsNer+Cap was likely to be a cost-effective regimen as the third-line therapy for women with HER2-positive MBC at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37 653.0/QALY in China.
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.