Article title: An economic evaluation of eribulin for advanced breast cancer treatment based on the Southeast Netherlands advanced breast cancer registry
Authors: Pouwels X. G. L. V., Ramaekers B. L. T., Geurts S. M. E., Erdkamp F., Vriens B. E. P. J., Aaldering K. N. A., van de Wouw A. J., Dercksen M. W., Smilde T. J., Peters N. A. J. B., van Riel J. M. G. H., Pepels M. J., Heijnen-Mommers J., Tjan-Heijnen V. C. G., de Boer M., & Joore M. A.
Journal: Acta Oncologica
Bibliometrics: Volume 59, Number 09, pages 1123–1130
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2020.1775289
During an internal review of the paper after its publication, the authors identified a mistake in one of the input parameters and a typographical error in Table 1. These errors slightly influenced the results but did not affect the conclusions of the paper. The online version of the article has now been corrected to rectify these errors, which are summarized below.
In Table 1 of the paper, the distribution used for modeling the disutility associated with adverse event in the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis was described as being '1-Gamma'; this should have been '0-Gamma'. This typographical error had no influence on the results since the latter is used in the technical implementation of the health economic model. Additionally, the parametric distribution for estimating progression-free survival should be ‘Gamma’ instead of ‘Lognormal’ and the parameter of the distributions should be the following:
Effectiveness and adverse events
In this section, the selected curve to model progression-free survival should have been described as a Gamma instead of a Log normal distribution. This is to prevent the progression-free survival curve crossing the overall survival curve, which leads to implausible progression-free survival estimations. Consequently, the results presented in Table 2 have been corrected as follows:
Corrections have also been made to Figure 2(a), Figure 3 and Supplemental Material 2.