ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing Cetuximab-β and Cetuximab for Chinese patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The escalating economic burden of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China necessitates cost-effective first-line treatments. Cetuximab-β, a newer version of Cetuximab, is approved for first-line RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Cetuximab-β with FOLFIRI for mCRC patients, comparing it to Cetuximab plus chemotherapy to guide clinical decision-making and policy development. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of six randomized controlled trials to compare overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Subsequently, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed using a 10-year partitioned survival model from the Chinese healthcare payer perspective. Costs were standardized to 2024 US dollars ($1 = ¥7.25). Both costs and outcomes were discounted annually at 5%. The model estimated life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Model uncertainty was evaluated via one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses. Results: The NMA showed comparable efficacy between Cetuximab-β and Cetuximab, with Cetuximab demonstrating an OS HR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.67-1.90) and a PFS HR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.49-1.80) compared with Cetuximab-β, along with a trend towards a more favorable safety profile for Cetuximab-β. CEA showed Cetuximab-β reduced costs by $12,005.54 ($34,996.43 vs. $47,001.97) and gained 0.10 QALYs (1.90 vs. 1.80 QALYs) Conclusion: Cetuximab-β plus FOLFIRI represents a dominant, cost-saving strategy compared to Cetuximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC in China.
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.