ArticleScientific reports2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Dacarbazine Complexation with a Cellobiose-Based Carrier: A Multimethod Theoretical, NMR, and Thermochemical Study.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Retroperitoneal dedifferentiated liposarcoma with colon infiltration: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
A subgroup analysis of a randomized study demonstrated that patients with advanced or metastatic liposarcoma treated with eribulin had longer overall survival and progression-free survival compared to those treated with dacarbazine, suggesting eribulin as a therapeutic option for advanced liposarcoma. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eribulin versus dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced liposarcoma. We established a 10-year Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of eribulin and dacarbazine regimens. Clinical data were sourced from a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 3 trials. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed. The total cost of the dacarbazine scheme was $10,895.558, with a QALY of 0.533. In contrast, the total cost of the eribulin scheme was $16,961.891, with a QALY of 0.698. The ICER between the eribulin and dacarbazine schemes was $36,736.467, which is below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in China ($37,877.469). From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, eribulin is cost-effective compared to dacarbazine at the WTP threshold.
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.