ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of elacestrant versus standard endocrine therapy for second-/third-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US payer perspective.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03778931 (Elacestrant Monotherapy vs. Standard of Care for the Treatment of Patients With ER+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Following CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy), which is not on this 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.
Elacestrant Monotherapy vs. Standard of Care for the Treatment of Patients With ER+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Following CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy: A Phase 3 Randomized, Open-label, Active-controlled, Multicenter Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Caution over haste: why novel endocrine therapy in early lines should wait in Estrogen receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Review
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
Background: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of elacestrant (ELA) and standard-of-care (SOC) as second-/third-line treatment for pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)- positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) in the US. Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival model (PSM) was conducted from the perspective of the US third-party payers. The time horizon for the model lasted 10 years. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the EMERALD trial (NCT03778931). Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to observe model stability. Result: ELA led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8,672,360/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared with SOC in the overall population and $2,900,560/QALY gained compared with fulvestrant (FUL) in the ESR1(estrogen receptor 1) mutation subgroup. The two ICERs of ELA were significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values of $150,000/QALY. Conclusions: ELA was not cost-effective for the second-/third-line treatment of patients with ER+/HER2-A/MBC compared with SOC in the US.
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.