Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026
Cost-effectiveness of inavolisib plus palbociclib-fulvestrant versus palbociclib plus fulvestrant as first-line treatment in HR+/HER2-advanced breast cancer.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhu Jiaming, Ding Ye, Li Zhengxiong, Liu Wen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of inavolisib plus palbociclib-fulvestrant versus palbociclib-fulvestrant for treating advanced HR+/HER2-breast cancer patients with PIK3CA mutations from both United States (U.S.) and Chinese healthcare system perspectives.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model was used, with survival data from the INAVO120 clinical trials. Primary outcomes assessed were costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the uncertainty of model inputs. Changes in treatment efficacy were modeled to assess their impact on cost-effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to refine the findings.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the inavolisib triple regimen showed an ICER of $249,487.22/QALY in the U.S. and $43,812.01/QALY in China, both exceeding their respective willingness-to-pay thresholds. Price simulation indicated that the inavolisib-based combination would be preferred in China if the price were reduced to $133.19/9 mg, while a price of $421.13/9 mg would be required to achieve cost-effectiveness in the U.S. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated robust results from the U.S. perspective, while for China, variations in the price of inavolisib and utility of progression-free-survival influenced the conclusions. Subgroup analyses suggested certain patient subgroups could be cost-effective in the Chinese context.
CONCLUSION: Compared with palbociclib-fulvestrant, the inavolisib triple regimen is not cost-effective at its current price. A substantial price reduction or careful selection of the target patient may be required for the regimen to be economically viable.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model was used, with survival data from the INAVO120 clinical trials. Primary outcomes assessed were costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the uncertainty of model inputs. Changes in treatment efficacy were modeled to assess their impact on cost-effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to refine the findings.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the inavolisib triple regimen showed an ICER of $249,487.22/QALY in the U.S. and $43,812.01/QALY in China, both exceeding their respective willingness-to-pay thresholds. Price simulation indicated that the inavolisib-based combination would be preferred in China if the price were reduced to $133.19/9 mg, while a price of $421.13/9 mg would be required to achieve cost-effectiveness in the U.S. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated robust results from the U.S. perspective, while for China, variations in the price of inavolisib and utility of progression-free-survival influenced the conclusions. Subgroup analyses suggested certain patient subgroups could be cost-effective in the Chinese context.
CONCLUSION: Compared with palbociclib-fulvestrant, the inavolisib triple regimen is not cost-effective at its current price. A substantial price reduction or careful selection of the target patient may be required for the regimen to be economically viable.