Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38304039›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab for metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer.

Jiangbo Shao, Cuiping Zhan, Chunxiang Jin, Ying Jin

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 NCT04085276 (A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study of Toripalimab), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04085276 phase3completednot on this map

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study of Toripalimab(JS001) in Combination With Nab-Paclitaxel Versus Placebo Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Patients With Metastatic or Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer With or Without Systemic Treatment (TORCHLIGHT)

TypeinterventionalSponsorShanghai Junshi Bioscience Co., Ltd.Ran2018 to 2025Enrolled531ConditionsTriple-Negative Breast CancerArmsJS001, Nab-Paclitaxel, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jiangbo ShaoDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Cuiping ZhanDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Chunxiang Jin *Department of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Ying Jin *Department of Breast Surgery, General Surgery Center, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Toliparibizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel (T+N) has excellent efficacy inmetastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but the optimal choice of sequence of therapy is unclear given the trade-offs between quality of life and cost. Cost-effectiveness analyses can quantify these tradeoffs, leading to more informed decisions. Our objective was to assess the societal cost-effectiveness of the T+N regimen for metastatic or recurrent TNBC. Methods: Clinical data were extracted from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, TORCHLIGHT (NCT04085276). Patients were randomized into the T+N group or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (P+N) group. 531 patients from 53 study locations were randomly assigned (T+N, n=353; P+N, n=178) into intend to treat (ITT) population; 200 and 100 patients, respectively had programmed death protein 1 (PD-L1) positive TNBC. A Markov model was established with a 21-day cycle length. Costs were acquired from local hospitals, effect parameters included quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The cost differences were 47,538.3 CNY in ITT population (T+N, 143,725.67 CNY; P+N group, 96,187.37 CNY) and 29,258.84 CNY in PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 100,128.28 CNY; P+N group, 70,869.45 CNY). Meanwhile, the IEs were 0.03409 in the ITT population (T+N, 0.55323 QALY; P+N, 0.51914 QALY) and 0.03409 in the PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 0.42327 QALY; P+N, 0.37628 QALY). The ICERs between T+N and P+N groups were 1,394,548.41 CNY/QALY in the ITT population and 622,663.98 CNY/QALY in the PD-L1+ subgroup. We also analyzed the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab could be received in the Chinese medical insurance catalog. If toripalimab could be reimbursed at an 80% rate, the cost differences were changed to 16,598.99 CNY in ITT population (T+N, 112,786.36 CNY; P+N group, 96,187.37 CNY) and 7,704.58 CNY in PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 78,574.03 CNY; P+N group, 70,869.45 CNY). Meanwhile, the IEs remained unchanged. The ICERs between T+N and P+N groups were changed to 486,935.82 CNY/QALY in the ITT population and 163,962.96 CNY/QALY in the PD-L1+ subgroup. Sensitivity analyses indicated the stability of the model and the impact of utility. Conclusion: At current drug prices, the T+N group is not more cost-effective than the P+N group, but after incorporating toripalimab into medical insurance, the T+N group will be more cost-effective for patients with PD-L1+ metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer.

Indexed as

cost-effectiveness analysisimmunotherapyPD-L1 positivetoripalimabtriple negative breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID38304039
PMCPMC10833221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.