Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38439629›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2024

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Srinivas Teppala, Paul A Scuffham, Haitham Tuffaha

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Srinivas TeppalaCentre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2818-840X
Paul A ScuffhamCentre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5931-642X
Haitham TuffahaCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2993-3480
Griffith University · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1116334National Health and Medical Research Council 1136923Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia Priority Impact Research Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of

methodsWe conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline

resultsCompared to standard care,

conclusionThis is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Indexed as

PhthalazinesPiperazinesProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisGerm CellsHumansMaleolaparibPhthalazinesPiperazinesBRCAcost effectivenessgermline testingmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancerolaparibpoly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID38439629
PMCPMC11570197
OpenAlexW4392476206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.