ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01621880 (Effect of Bevacizumab on Radiation-induced Brain Necrosis in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Effect of Bevacizumab on Radiation-induced Brain Necrosis in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bevacizumab for symptomatic cerebral radiation necrosis after radiation of high-grade glioma or brain metastases - when and for whom?Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Review
- Reirradiation for recurrent glioblastoma: the significance of the residual tumor volume.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundBevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective.
methodsA decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsBevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%.
conclusionCompared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38829437What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.