ArticleThe pharmacogenomics journal2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of encorafenib in untreated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in China.
Article in The pharmacogenomics journal, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib plus cetuximab (EC) and EC combined with mFOLFOX6 versus standard of care (SOC) as first-line treatment for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer from a Chinese healthcare perspective. Using a partitioned survival model with data from the BREAKWATER trial, we found that compared to SOC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for EC and EC plus mFOLFOX6 were 77,589.95 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and 82,419.06 per QALY, respectively, both exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $40,343.68/QALY. At this threshold, SOC had a 95.43% probability of being cost-effective against EC, and 99.64% against EC plus mFOLFOX6. We conclude that neither EC nor EC plus mFOLFOX6 is cost-effective in China at current prices, suggesting the price negotiations would be necessary to improve their economic value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42185244What 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.