ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Cost-effectiveness of DPYD genotyping prior to capecitabine administration for metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. 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.
- Comments on: Cost-effectiveness of DPYD genotyping prior to capecitabine administration for metastatic breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
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
purposePatients with a DPYD genetic deficiency who receive capecitabine are at increased risk of severe, potentially fatal toxicities due to impaired drug metabolism. Genetic testing for this deficiency allows for proactive dose adjustments to mitigate these risks. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DPYD genotyping prior to capecitabine administration, followed by dose modification for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
methodsWe developed a state-transition model to simulate health outcomes and costs for a cohort of 62-year-old women with metastatic breast cancer from the perspective of the U.S. healthcare payer. Costs and utilities were derived from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DPYD genotyping compared to no DPYD genotyping. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to identify factors influencing cost-effectiveness.
resultsThe genotyping strategy was cost-effective, with a cost of $2,832 yielding 1.16 QALYs, compared to $2,677 and 1.15 QALYs for the no-genotyping strategy. This resulted in an ICER of $12,916/QALY and $10,333 per life-year-gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the genotyping strategy was cost-effective in 99% of the simulations, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results from scenario analyses testing key assumptions also showed that genotyping is cost-effective.
conclusionOur findings support the implementation of DPYD genotyping prior to capecitabine initiation in metastatic breast cancer patients. This strategy exemplifies the value of personalized medicine and pharmacogenomics in improving treatment safety and effectiveness. As sequencing technologies advance and become affordable, integration of genotyping into routine oncology care is increasingly feasible.
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.