Paclitaxel-based strategy as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer: a model-based economic evaluation for China
Résumé fourni par la source
AIM: The limited number of cost-utility studies of breast cancer conducted in China makes comparisons among different paclitaxel-based strategies difficult. To provide such data, a cost-utility analysis comparing albumin-bound formulation (nab)-paclitaxel (ABPTX), paclitaxel polymer micelles (PTXPM), and paclitaxel (PTX) for advanced breast cancer was performed. METHODS: Tree Age Pro 2011 software was used to simulate a Markov model to perform a health economic evaluation. Patient-related data for this study were obtained from large multicenter Phase III clinical trial studies. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were considered as primary outcomes. RESULTS: The model results showed that the 60-cycle mortality rate was 98.3% in the ABPTX group and 99.7% in the PTXPM group. Cost-utility analysis calculated that ABPTX had an increased life expectancy of 0.183 QALYs compared with patients receiving PTXPM, with an incremental cost of $4,914.747, resulting in an ICER value of $26,846.310 per QALY. When the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was increased to approximately $30,000 per QALY, PTXPM had a 50% probability of being cost-effective compared with ABPTX. CONCLUSION: At the WTP threshold of $37,721.52/QALY in China, ABPTX is more cost-effective than PTXPM under equivalent efficacy and safety, from the Chinese healthcare perspective.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Paclitaxel-based strategy as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer: a model-based economic evaluation for China
- Date Crossref
- 26/08/2025
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.