Is Palbociclib a cost-effective strategy in the second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Palbociclib in the second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in Iran. METHODS: The present economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model (PSM). This model compares lifetime costs and disease outcomes among groups receiving different medication combinations containing Palbociclib, Fulvestrant, Everolimus, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib as the second-line therapy for HR+/HER2- MBC. The model was conducted from Iran's healthcare perspective, structured with 1-month cycles, and the evaluation time horizon in the base analysis was set to 180 cycles (15 years). Transition probabilities were extracted using the survival curves. The cost information was extracted based on the year 2020. The Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) was considered the final outcome unit, and the cost-effectiveness of different combinations is calculated as cost per QALY. The annual discount rate of 5% was considered for costs and QALYs. Two times Iran's GDP per capita (800,000,000 IRR = US$5934) was used as the threshold. Finally, due to the uncertainty of some parameters, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: The base case results showed that the highest cost was for the 'Ribociclib+ Fulvestrant' combination (US$89,629.56), and the lowest price was for the 'Iranian Everolimus + Fulvestrant' combination (US$10,740.09). 'Palbociclib + Fulvestrant' brings about the highest value of 1.456 incremental QALYs compared to other strategies. Finally, the 'Iranian Palbociclib + Fulvestrant' was the cost-effective combination, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$4,201 compared to other strategies. The base case results were supported by the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of Iranian Palbociclib has a threshold of US$582.99. CONCLUSIONS: The 'Iranian Palbociclib + Fulvestrant' combination was cost-effective in second-line therapy for HR+ HER2- MBC in Iran.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".