↓ Skip to main content

Everolimus plus exemestane versus bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in Greece: An economic evaluation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Everolimus plus exemestane versus bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in Greece: An economic evaluation study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0971-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgia Kourlaba, Vasiliki Rapti, Athanasios Alexopoulos, John Relakis, Georgios Koumakis, Magdalini Chatzikou, Nikos Maniadakis, Vassilis Georgoulias

Abstract

The objective of our study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness (CE) study of combined everolimus (EVE) and exemestane (EXE) versus the common clinical practice in Greece for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (BC) progressing on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAI). The combinations of bevacizumab (BEV) plus paclitaxel (PACL) and BEV plus capecitabine (CAPE) were selected as comparators. A Markov model, consisting of three health states, was used to describe disease progression and evaluate the CE of the comparators from a third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy and safety data as well as utility values considered in the model were extracted from the relevant randomized Phase III clinical trials and other published studies. Direct medical costs referring to the year 2014 were incorporated in the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for uncertainty and variation in the parameters of the model. Primary outcomes were patient survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The discounted quality-adjusted survival of patients treated with EVE plus EXE was greater by 0.035 and 0.004 QALYs, compared to BEV plus PACL and BEV plus CAPE, respectively. EVE plus EXE was the least costly treatment in terms of drug acquisition, administration, and concomitant medications. The total lifetime cost per patient was estimated at €55,022, €67,980, and €62,822 for EVE plus EXE, BEV plus PACL, and BEV plus CAPE, respectively. The probabilistic analysis confirmed the deterministic results. Our results suggest that EVE plus EXE may be a dominant alternative relative to BEV plus PACL and BEV plus CAPE for the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced BC patients failing initial therapy with NSAIs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Professor 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 10%
Unspecified 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,284,384
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,104
of 7,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,909
of 264,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#116
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.