ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first-line treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a Markov's model-based evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Cost Patterns in CDK4/6 Inhibitor-Treated HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in advanced hormonal receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancer: a nationwide budget impact analysis.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Current Therapeutic Strategies for Melanoma.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Taiwan.Cancers · 2025Article
- CDK4/6 as a Therapeutic Target in HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer Cells-Current Treatment Status.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: CDK4/6 inhibitors are the first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Despite their clinical benefit, they can increase healthcare expenditure. To date, there is no thorough comparison among the three approved CDK4/6 inhibitors in terms of their cost-effectiveness. Objective: To investigate and compare the cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with letrozole as a first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with hormonal-receptor-positivity and HER-2-negativity versus one another and versus letrozole monotherapy. Methods: A 10-year within-cycle-corrected Markov's model was employed from the healthcare payer perspective. Costs were obtained from the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR) in Qatar. Utilities and transition probabilities were calculated from published landmark trials of PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2, MONARCH-3, PO25, and other relevant literature. Costs, measured in Qatari Riyal (QAR), and effectiveness, measured in quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), were incremented and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1.5 Qatari GDP (448,758 QAR). A deterministic sensitivity analysis was implemented to account for uncertainties. Results: Ribociclib was the most effective option, generating 4.420 QALYs, followed by palbociclib (4.406 QALYs), abemaciclib (4.220 QALYs), then letrozole monotherapy (2.093 QALYs). As for cost-effectiveness, ribociclib dominated palbociclib. However, it was not cost-effective compared to abemaciclib (ICER=1,588,545 QAR/QALY). Ribociclib remained dominant over palbociclib with all uncertainties. The base-case conclusion of ribociclib versus abemaciclib remained robust over all uncertainties. Conclusion: From the healthcare payer perspective in Qatar, ribociclib is the most effective CDK4/6 inhibitor. It was dominant over palbociclib in terms of cost-effectiveness; however, it was not cost-effective compared to abemaciclib at current prices.
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.