ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-utility analysis of olaparib assisted targeted therapy for BRCA mutation HER2-negative early breast cancer in China and in the United States.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world cost evaluation of conbercept vs. ranibizumab for retinal and choroidal vascular diseases from 2021 to 2024: evidence from societal and medical insurance perspectives.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of fuzuloparib, with or without apatinib, for BRCA mutation HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Review
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
Abstract
backgroundOlaparib, an inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), has demonstrated promising outcomes in treating HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer with BRCA mutations. However, a comprehensive evaluation of its cost-effectiveness in the context of the United States and China has yet to be undertaken. This study seeks to fill this research void by performing a thorough cost-utility analysis.
methodsThis investigation takes as its foundation the findings from the OlympiA trial. We obtained survival curves from this trial and used the Weibull distribution function to calculate transition probabilities. Relevant literature provided the necessary data on costs, utility values, and discount rates applicable to both the United States and China. We utilized TreeAge software to construct Markov models for each country, simulating the progression of early-stage breast cancer. These models underwent extensive examination through multi-way analysis, cost-utility analysis, Monte Carlo simulations, one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses, as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
resultsThe cost-utility analysis of the Chinese Markov model revealed that the total expenditure for the Olaparib cohort amounted to 384,274.75 RMB, generating 6.41 QALYs. Conversely, the placebo group incurred a total cost of 60,264.10 RMB, resulting in 6.34 QALYs. The Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) between the two cohorts stood at 5,007,332.36 RMB/QALY, which is significantly higher than thrice the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of China in 2022, set at 257,094 RMB. As for the U.S. model, the Olaparib group had a total expenditure of 245,604.01 USD, yielding 7.53 QALYs, while the placebo cohort had a total cost of 93,019.92 USD, generating 7.45 QALYs. The ICUR for the two groups was calculated at 1,891,974.19 USD/QALY, substantially surpassing the U.S. Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) threshold of 150,000 USD/QALY.
conclusionsWhen evaluated in the context of healthcare economics in both China and the United States, the implementation of an Olaparib-based treatment strategy for early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer with BRCA mutations does not present a cost-effective solution in either nation.
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.