ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of gene-expression-based prognostic tests for patients with early-stage breast cancer in South Korea.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is a common treatment modality for patients with breast cancer; however, not all patients benefit from this therapy. To identify these patients, gene expression profiling tests, such as Oncotype DX (ODX), have been developed and are widely used. However, performance differences based on ethnicity have been reported for ODX. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the performance and cost-effectiveness of these tests against those developed for Asian patients, such as the GenesWell Breast Cancer Test (BCT). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using ODX, BCT, and no testing to determine the need for ACT in patients with breast cancer by comparing each option.
methodsWe used decision tree and Markov models over a ten-year horizon to forecast ODX and BCT cost-effectiveness. The results are presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the perspective of the payer of Korean National Health Insurance. Uncertainty was assessed using scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsCompared to the no-test alternative, BCT gained 0.0977 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with savings of US$1,091, while the ODX gained 0.0906 QALYs with savings of US$544, both demonstrating dominance over the no-test. When comparing BCT to ODX, the outcomes were similar, with the BCT strategy achieving a cost savings of US$547 and an additional gain of 0.0071 QALYs.
conclusionThe comparison of gene profiling tests, ODX and BCT, with the no-testing strategy demonstrated comparable levels of QALY improvement and cost savings.
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.