ArticleClinical drug investigation2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan and Physician's Choice of Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Triple Negative Breast Cancer in Spain.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of subsequent-line therapies for advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a bayesian network meta-analysis.Oncology reviews · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPatients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have poor prognosis and survival outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) has shown significant survival benefits, but its cost-effectiveness still needs evaluation. The present study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SG versus physician's choice of treatment in patients with mTNBC in the context of the Spanish National Health system.
methodsA partitioned survival model using data from the ASCENT clinical trial was developed to assess lifetime costs and benefits for patients with mTNBC. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were employed as a measure of effectiveness. Data on costs and subsequent treatment were gathered from Spanish sources and validated by health professionals. Analyses were performed from the perspective of the Spanish NHS over lifetime.
resultsThe average health cost of treating patients with SG for 120 months was €94,335 compared with €7926 for treatment of physician choice. Effectiveness pertaining to the SG group was 1.05 QALY compared with 0.48 QALY in the control group. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €151,716/QALY. Univariate sensitivity analyses produced ICURs that ranged between 102,764 and 216,077 €/QALY.
conclusionsDespite clinical benefits of SG in patients with mTNBC, its cost exceeds accepted thresholds. The findings suggest a need for price reassessment within the Spanish National Health System to ensure value-based, equitable access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41191273What 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.