ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Anastrozole combined with Abemaciclib for the treatment of postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe MONARCH 3 trial has demonstrated that Anastrozole combined with Abemaciclib is safe and effective for the treatment of postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. However, its cost-effectiveness for long-term use has not been investigated yet. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anastrozole combined with Abemaciclib versus Anastrozole used alone for patients in China.
methodsBased on MONARCH 3 trial data, we constructed a Markov model using Treeage Pro 2022 software. The model cycle was set at 1 month over a period of 20- year time horizon, and the annual discount rate was set at 5%. The cost-utility analysis was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of Anastrozole combined with Abemaciclib for the treatment of postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. The output indexes of the model were cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and the model evaluation index was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was set at 3 times the per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China in 2023 (¥268,074/QALY). Meanwhile, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to explore the uncertainties of the model and parameters.
resultsAnastrozole combined with Abemaciclib provided more health benefits than Anastrozole used alone, however, the total cost was higher. The incremental utility and incremental cost were 0.01 QALYs and ¥1075.51, respectively. And the ICER of the two regimens was ¥93,940.83/QALY, which was less than 3 times the per-capita GDP of China in 2023 (¥268,074). The results of the sensitivity analysis attested that the study results were robust.
conclusionsAnastrozole combined with Abemaciclib is more cost-effective than Anastrozole used alone for the treatment of postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.
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.