Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer / Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies · Journal article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of triplet therapy of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab for treatment of metastatic BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer in China

Frontiers in Pharmacology · August 10, 2026

Preliminary Why this matters to you Expert discussion

Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.

AI Summary

This is a modelled cost-effectiveness analysis comparing triplet (encorafenib, binimetinib, cetuximab), doublet (encorafenib, cetuximab), and control (cetuximab + FOLFIRI) therapy for BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer in a Chinese health-system context. Using a 3-state partitioned survival model, triplet therapy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 154,675.20 USD/QALY versus doublet and 140,355.45 USD/QALY versus control—both exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of 40,000 USD/QALY, suggesting triplet therapy was not cost-effective under those assumptions.

What was studied

Economic evaluation using 3-state partitioned survival model. Metastatic or advanced colorectal cancer patients with BRAF V600E mutation; China; second-line or subsequent treatment.. Intervention: Triplet therapy: encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab. Compared with: Doublet therapy (encorafenib and cetuximab) and control therapy (cetuximab plus FOLFIRI). China.

Key findings

Triplet therapy cost 58,614.81 USD vs. doublet 46,521.37 USD vs. control 15,710.17 USD Triplet therapy yielded 0.84 QALYs; doublet 0.76 QALYs; control 0.53 QALYs ICER triplet vs. doublet: 154,675.20 USD/QALY; triplet vs. control: 140,355.45 USD/QALY

Safety

Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.

Who this may help

This analysis suggests that triplet therapy is not economically justified in the Chinese health system at the stated threshold. However, clinicians should note that cost-effectiveness conclusions are sensitive to assumptions about survival, quality of life, and threshold choice, which are not fully transparent in this abstract.

Plain-language summary

A cost-effectiveness model using a partitioned survival framework in a single health-system context; lacks clinical trial data underpinning the model and does not report the source evidence for efficacy or survival inputs.

Study design

As stated by the source record.

MethodsEconomic evaluation using 3-state partitioned survival model

PopulationMetastatic or advanced colorectal cancer patients with BRAF V600E mutation; China; second-line or subsequent treatment.

InterventionTriplet therapy: encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab

ComparatorDoublet therapy (encorafenib and cetuximab) and control therapy (cetuximab plus FOLFIRI)

SettingChina

Reported figures

Quoted from the source exactly as published.

Cost (triplet therapy)58,614.81 USD

Cost (doublet therapy)46,521.37 USD

Cost (control therapy)15,710.17 USD

Utility (triplet therapy)0.84 QALYs

Utility (doublet therapy)0.76 QALYs

Utility (control therapy)0.53 QALYs

ICER (triplet vs. doublet)154,675.20 USD/QALY

ICER (triplet vs. control)140,355.45 USD/QALY

Clinical bottom line

Caveats

Source of clinical efficacy data (survival curves, response rates) not reported; transparency of model inputs is insufficient.
No sensitivity analysis or threshold-variation analysis reported; robustness of conclusion unknown.
Willingness-to-pay threshold of 40,000 USD/QALY is not universally accepted; results may differ at alternative thresholds.
Generalizability to other health systems, time horizons, or patient populations not addressed.

Evidence assessment

Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.

Study design

limited

Modelled economic evaluation; no primary clinical data collection or trial design.

Directness

moderate

Directly addresses cost-effectiveness question in China; depends on external efficacy data not detailed here.

Consistency

insufficient

Single model; no comparison to other cost-effectiveness analyses or sensitivity analysis reported.

Risk of bias

limited

Model assumptions and data sources not disclosed; cannot assess transparency of parameter selection.

Sample adequacy

insufficient

Economic model with no primary sample; underlying clinical trial sample sizes not reported.

Source abstract

Background This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triplet therapy of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in contrast to doublet therapy of encorafenib and cetuximab or a control group of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI as second-line or subsequent treatment for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with BRAF V600 E mutation-positive status in China. Methods An economic evaluation using a 3-state partitioned survival model assessed the cost-effectiveness of triplet therapy versus doublet therapy, triplet therapy versus the control group, or doublet therapy versus the control group. Results The anticipated costs for triplet therapy, doublet therapy and control therapy were 58,614.81 USD, 46,521.37 USD and 15,710.17 USD, respectively. The estimated utilities of triplet therapy, doublet therapy and control therapy were 0.84 QALYs, 0.76 QALYs and 0.53 QALYs. The ICER of triplet-therapy vs. doublet-therapy or triplet-therapy vs. control therapy or doublet-therapy vs. control therapy was 154,675.20 USD/QALY, 140,355.45 USD/QALY, or 135,434.11 USD/QALY. Conclusion Our results suggested that triplet therapy was not cost-effective compared to doublet therapy and control therapy as second-line or subsequent treatment for advanced or mCRC patients with BRAF V600 E mutation at a WTP threshold of 40,000 USD/QALY.

Follow from this

Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.

Mengmeng LiuTong LiuEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies