ArticleDaru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences2026
Cost-Effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy as first-line maintenance for patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a analysis from a Chinese healthcare perspective.
Article in Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe PAOLA-1 trial demonstrated that olaparib plus bevacizumab (OB) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to bevacizumab monotherapy (BM) as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) who had homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive status at high risk of disease progression (HRisk-HRD
methodsA state-transition Markov model over a 20-year lifetime horizon was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of OB compared to BM. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China in 2024 ($13444.68 to $40334.05/QALY). The primary outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the study.
resultsCompared with BM, the ICERs of OB were $10806.70/QALY, $10478.80/QALY and $25114.44/QALY in the HRisk-HRD
conclusionsCompared to BM, OB demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with HRisk-HRD
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.