ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Cost-effectiveness of utidelone and capecitabine versus monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02253459 (Phase III Clinical Trials of UTD1 Injection Plus Capecitabine Versus Capecitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer), which is not on this 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.
Phase III Clinical Trials of UTD1 Injection Plus Capecitabine Versus Capecitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of combining utidelone with capecitabine, compared to capecitabine monotherapy, for the treatment of anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer within the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model was formulated based on patient characteristics from the NCT02253459 trial. Efficacy, safety, and health economics data were sourced from the trial and real-world clinical practices. We derived estimates for costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the two treatment strategies. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to rigorously evaluate uncertainties' impact. Results: Over a 5-year span, the combination therapy manifested substantially higher costs than capecitabine monotherapy, with a differential of US$ 26,370.63. This combined approach conferred an additional 0.49 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of US$ 53,874.17/QALY. Utilizing the established willingness-to-pay threshold, the combination might not consistently be deemed cost-effective when juxtaposed against monotherapy. However, at an ICER of US$ 53,874.4/QALY, the probability of the combination being cost-effective increased to 48.97%. Subgroup analysis revealed that the combination was more cost-effective than capecitabine alone in specific patient groups, including those <60 years, patients with more than two chemotherapy rounds, patients lacking certain metastases, patients having limited metastatic sites, patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0, and patients with particular hormone receptor profiles. Conclusion: Although the combination of utidelone and capecitabine may not be an economically viable universal choice for anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer, it could be more cost-effective in specific patient subgroups than capecitabine monotherapy.
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.