ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the second-line treatment for HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caution over haste: why novel endocrine therapy in early lines should wait in Estrogen receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of antibody-drug conjugates in previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.Health economics review · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of various CDK4/6 inhibitors plus fulvestrant with fulvestrant monotherapy in the second-line treatment for patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model was established to investigate the total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 10-year lifetime horizon. Clinical data was derived from the MONARCH 2 trial, PALOMA 3 trial and MONALEESA 3 trial; direct medical costs and utilities were acquired from local charges and published literature. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: In the base-case analysis, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, palbociclib plus fulvestrant, ribociclib plus fulvestrant resulted in ICERs of $3,636.51/QALY, $1,256.32/QALY, and $39,654.78/QALY, respectively, compared with fulvestrant monotherapy. In the pairwise comparison between three CDK4/6 inhibitors, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant was the most cost-effectiveness treatment option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the proportion of subsequent treatment, utility values of progression-free survival (PFS), cost of best supportive care had a significant impact on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that abemaciclib plus fulvestrant achieved an overwhelming superiority with a 99.82% probability to be the most cost-effective strategy in China at the current price and willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant represented the optimal regimen as the second-line treatment for HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.