ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Paclitaxel-based strategy as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer: a model-based economic evaluation for China.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of inavolisib combined with palbociclib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated HR+/Her2- advanced breast cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe limited number of cost-utility studies of breast cancer conducted in China makes comparisons among different paclitaxel-based strategies difficult. To provide such data, a cost-utility analysis comparing albumin-bound formulation (nab)-paclitaxel (ABPTX), paclitaxel polymer micelles (PTXPM), and paclitaxel (PTX) for advanced breast cancer was performed.
methodsTree Age Pro 2011 software was used to simulate a Markov model to perform a health economic evaluation. Patient-related data for this study were obtained from large multicenter Phase III clinical trial studies. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were considered as primary outcomes.
resultsThe model results showed that the 60-cycle mortality rate was 98.3% in the ABPTX group and 99.7% in the PTXPM group. Cost-utility analysis calculated that ABPTX had an increased life expectancy of 0.183 QALYs compared with patients receiving PTXPM, with an incremental cost of $4,914.747, resulting in an ICER value of $26,846.310 per QALY. When the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was increased to approximately $30,000 per QALY, PTXPM had a 50% probability of being cost-effective compared with ABPTX.
conclusionAt the WTP threshold of $37,721.52/QALY in China, ABPTX is more cost-effective than PTXPM under equivalent efficacy and safety, from the Chinese healthcare perspective.
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.