ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of triplet therapy of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab for treatment of metastatic BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer in China.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triplet therapy of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in contrast to doublet therapy of encorafenib and cetuximab or a control group of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI as second-line or subsequent treatment for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with BRAF V600 E mutation-positive status in China. Methods: An economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of triplet therapy versus doublet therapy, triplet therapy versus the control group, or doublet therapy versus the control group. Results: The anticipated costs for triplet therapy, doublet therapy and control therapy were 58,614.81 USD, 46,521.37 USD and 15,710.17 USD, respectively. The estimated utilities of triplet therapy, doublet therapy and control therapy were 0.84 QALYs, 0.76 QALYs and 0.53 QALYs. The ICER of triplet-therapy vs. doublet-therapy or triplet-therapy vs. control therapy or doublet-therapy vs. control therapy was 154,675.20 USD/QALY, 140,355.45 USD/QALY, or 135,434.11 USD/QALY. Conclusion: Our results suggested that triplet therapy was not cost-effective compared to doublet therapy and control therapy as second-line or subsequent treatment for advanced or mCRC patients with BRAF V600 E mutation at a WTP threshold of 40,000 USD/QALY.
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.