ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2024
Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine treatment with tamoxifen for male breast cancer.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTamoxifen (TAM) is recommended as the first-line strategy for men with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive early breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy in ASCO guideline. Our study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy with TAM compared to no TAM, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using TAM with high adherence over low adherence for ER-positive early male breast cancer in the USA.
methodsTwo Markov models comprising three mutually exclusive health states were constructed: (1) the first Markov model compared the cost-effectiveness of adding TAM with not using TAM (TAM versus Not-TAM); (2) the second model compared the cost-effectiveness of receiving TAM with high adherence and low adherence (High-adherence-TAM versus Low-adherence-TAM). The simulation time horizon for both models was the lifetime of patients. The efficacy and safety data of two models were elicited from the real-world studies. Model inputs were derived from the US website and published literature. The main outcomes of two models both included the total cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsIn the first model, TAM yielded an ICER of $5707.29 per QALY compared to Not-TAM, which was substantially below the WTP threshold of $50,000.00 per QALY in the USA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results demonstrated a 100.00% probability of cost-effectiveness for this strategy. In the second model, High-adherence-TAM was dominated absolutely compared to Low-adherence-TAM. The High-adherence-TAM was cost-effective with a 99.70% probability over Low-adherence-TAM when WTP was set as $50,000.00/QALY. All of these parameters within their plausible ranges did not reversely change the results of our models.
conclusionsOur study will offer valuable guidance for physicians or patients when making treatment decisions and provide an effective reference for decision-making to consider the appropriate allocation of funds to this special group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38878154What 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.