---
title: "Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights"
description: "Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights for Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor, each value quoted from the article: 10 cost-effectiveness analyses and 9 studies reporting utility weights. Analyses: Sunitinib versus no treatment in gastrointestinal stromal tumors under pharmacometric and traditional model structures, the Netherlands: Centanni et al. (2025); Sunitinib versus best supportive care in imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumour, Canada: Chabot et al. (2008); Sunitinib versus best supportive care in metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumour after imatinib, Spain: Paz-Ares et al. (2008); Drug concentration, neutrophil count, and sVEGFR-3 guided sunitinib dosing versus fixed dosing in gastrointestinal stromal tumors, Sweden and the Netherlands: Centanni and Friberg (2020); 6 further articles. Utility weights: Utility weights at baseline, after progression, and for sunitinib adverse events, gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Centanni et al. (2025); Utility weights for progression-free gastrointestinal stromal tumour on and off sunitinib, on best supportive care, and after progression: Chabot et al. (2008); Utility weights for gastrointestinal stromal tumour during sunitinib treatment and rest weeks, on best supportive care, and after progression: Paz-Ares et al. (2008); Utility weights for progression-free and progressed gastrointestinal stromal tumour: Tamoschus et al. (2017); 5 further articles. Every value is a verbatim quote from the primary article it is shown with."
canonical: "https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/cost-effectiveness-analyses"
published: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
modified: "2026-10-22T07:49:06-04:00"
---
# Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: cost-effectiveness analyses and utility weights
Published cost-effectiveness analyses and health-state utility weights that a model of this product could cite, adapt, or compare against, grouped by how each article relates to the product and its indication. Every value is quoted from the article it cites, and section 3 lists the searches that found the articles.
## Overview
| Item | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Literature searched | Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, searched October 21, 2026; the queries are listed in section 3. |
| Cost-effectiveness analyses | 10 |
| Studies reporting utility weights | 9 |
## 1 Cost-effectiveness analyses
### 1.1 Analyses of Bezuclastinib
No evidence found.
### 1.2 Treatments for the same indication
#### Sunitinib versus no treatment in gastrointestinal stromal tumors under pharmacometric and traditional model structures, the Netherlands: Centanni et al. (2025)
Relevance: Compares pharmacometric and conventional model structures in a cost-utility evaluation of sunitinib against no treatment in gastrointestinal stromal tumor in the Netherlands, the modeling study section 4.1 cites; sunitinib is the PEAK control arm and the partner drug of bezuclastinib.
> “A two-arm trial comparing sunitinib 37.5 mg daily with no treatment was simulated using a pharmacometric-based pharmacoeconomic model framework. Overall, four existing models [time-to-event (TTE) and Markov models] were re-estimated to the survival data and linked to logistic regression models describing the toxicity data [neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome (HFS)] to create traditional pharmacoeconomic model frameworks.”
> “The economic evaluation was conducted from the Dutch healthcare system perspective, with costs reported in 2023 (Euros). A time horizon of 2 years (104 weeks) was selected as most adverse events occur within this period, and the median survival is approximately 2 years (around 100 weeks).”
> “Both costs and life-year outcomes were discounted by 4% per year, following Dutch guidelines”
> “The pharmacometric model framework predicted that sunitinib treatment costs an additional 142,756 euros per quality adjusted life year (QALY) compared with no treatment, with deviations − 21.2% (discrete Markov), − 15.1% (continuous Markov), + 7.2% (TTE Weibull), and + 39.6% (TTE exponential) from the traditional model frameworks.”
> “The predicted ICUR varied across models, where the highest was found for the exponential TTE model at 199,232 euro per QALY [standard deviation (sd) 8655] and the lowest for the discrete Markov model at 112,484 (sd 1855). The Weibull TTE model showed an ICUR of 153,050 (sd 4037), and the continuous Markov model predicted an ICUR of 121,197 (sd 2981).”
Source: [Centanni et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11724784/)
#### Sunitinib versus best supportive care in imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumour, Canada: Chabot et al. (2008)
Relevance: Evaluates sunitinib against best supportive care in imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumour in a submission to the Canadian Drug Review, the analysis listed as an additional source in section 4.1; sunitinib is the PEAK control arm and the partner drug of bezuclastinib.
> “we present the submission to the Canadian Drug Review (CDR) of a cost-effectiveness evaluation of sunitinib versus best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumour in patients intolerant or resistant to imatinib.”
> “The economic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for sunitinib versus BSC of dollars 79,884/quality-adjusted life-year gained.”
> “Eight months after initial submission, CDR granted a final recommendation to fund sunitinib following the manufacturer's appeal against their first recommendation.”
Source: [Chabot et al. (2008)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18372169/)
#### Sunitinib versus best supportive care in metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumour after imatinib, Spain: Paz-Ares et al. (2008)
Relevance: Evaluates sunitinib, the second-line standard after imatinib failure listed in section 2 and the PEAK control arm, against best supportive care in metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumor after imatinib progression or intolerance in Spain.
> “The purpose of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib vs. best supportive care (BSC) in GIST as a second- line treatment, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.”
> “Transition probabilities between the three health states considered in the model (progression-free survival (PFS), progression and death) were obtained from a clinical trial”
> “Projected PFS years, life years (LY) and quality of life adjusted years (QALYs) were higher for sunitinib compared with BSC: 0.50 vs. 0.24, 1.59 vs. 0.88 and 1.00 vs. 0.55.”
> “Mean costs per patient were 23,259 euros with sunitinib and 1,622 euros with BSC.”
> “The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) obtained were: 4,090 euros/month PFS, 30,242 euros/LY and 49,090 euros/QALY gained.”
Source: [Paz-Ares et al. (2008)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19068454/)
#### Drug concentration, neutrophil count, and sVEGFR-3 guided sunitinib dosing versus fixed dosing in gastrointestinal stromal tumors, Sweden and the Netherlands: Centanni and Friberg (2020)
Relevance: Evaluates drug concentration, neutrophil count, and sVEGFR-3 guided dose individualization of sunitinib, the PEAK control arm and the partner drug of bezuclastinib, against fixed sunitinib dosing in gastrointestinal stromal tumor in Sweden and the Netherlands.
> “This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and economical aspects of alternative dosing options for sunitinib in gastro-intestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).”
> “Using the established biomarker threshold values, the influence of each sunitinib biomarker was simulated for a virtual patient population (n = 1,000) over a 5-years time horizon, as recommended for cost-effectiveness analysis”
> “The cost per additional life-year was highest for TDM-based (€115 433), when compared to ANC-based (€71 458) and sVEGFR-3-based (€25 340) dosing. Cost per additional QALY was found to be substantially lower for s-VEGFR-3 (€36 784), compared to TDM-based (€173 150) and ANC-based (€104 438) dosing.”
> “Using the threshold of €80 000 and 500,000 SEK (~€57,000) per gained QALY, this would entail that sVEGFR-3 based dosing can be regarded as a cost‐effective intervention in the Netherlands and Sweden, respectively”
Source: [Centanni and Friberg (2020)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7080977/)
### 1.3 The same disease in other populations or settings
#### Ripretinib plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in fourth-line or later advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors, United States: Liao et al. (2021)
Relevance: Evaluates fourth-line ripretinib, the comparator against sunitinib in the INTRIGUE trial and a fourth-line treatment listed in section 2, against best supportive care in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor from a United States health care payer perspective.
> “We used a Markov model with three health states: progression-free disease, progression disease and death. We parameterized the model from time-to-event data (progression-free survival, overall survival) of ripretinib and placebo arms in the INVICTUS trial and extrapolated to a patient’s lifetime horizon.”
> “A discount rate of 3% per annum was used for costs and health benefits, and a half-cycle correction was included.”
> “this analysis took the payer’s perspective.”
> “The base-case model projected improved outcomes (by 0.29 QALYs) and additional costs (by $70,251) and yielded an ICER of $244,010/QALY gained for ripretinib versus placebo.”
> “Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that ripretinib was the cost-effective therapy in 41.1% of simulations at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000.”
> “Ripretinib would achieve its cost-effectiveness with a price discount of 56% given the present effectiveness.”
Source: [Liao et al. (2021)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8685288/)
#### Regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge in gastrointestinal stromal tumour after imatinib and sunitinib, Germany: Tamoschus et al. (2017)
Relevance: Evaluates regorafenib, the third-line standard listed in section 2, against imatinib rechallenge in gastrointestinal stromal tumor in Germany.
> “The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared to imatinib rechallenge in this setting in Germany.”
> “Hazard ratios for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with regorafenib versus imatinib rechallenge were estimated by indirect comparison.”
> “A state distribution model was used to simulate progression, mortality and treatment costs over a lifetime horizon.”
> “Regorafenib treatment per patient over a lifetime horizon provided an additional 0.61 LYs and 0.42 QALYs over imatinib rechallenge, with additional direct drug costs of €8,773. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €21,127 per QALY gained.”
> “At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000 per QALY, regorafenib had a 67% probability of being cost-effective.”
Source: [Tamoschus et al. (2017)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28361439/)
#### Targeted gene testing with tailored first-line therapy versus empirical imatinib in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor, United States: Banerjee et al. (2020)
Relevance: Evaluates mutational testing with tailored first-line therapy against empirical imatinib in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor in the United States, the first-line setting that precedes the post-imatinib population of PEAK.
> “We developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of targeted gene testing (TGT) and variation-directed first-line therapy compared with empirical imatinib therapy for patients with metastatic GIST from the US payer perspective.”
> “Cycle length was defined as 2 months, based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendation for assessment of disease progression, and the model time horizon was 10 years.”
> “All costs were adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars using the consumer price index.”
> “An annual discounting rate of 3% was applied for cost and effectiveness.”
> “Therapy directed by TGT was associated with an increase of 0.10 QALYs at a cost of $9513 compared with the empirical imatinib approach, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $92 100.”
> “Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that TGT-directed therapy was considered cost-effective 70% of the time.”
Source: [Banerjee et al. (2020)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7522695/)
#### Imatinib versus no treatment in advanced unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumour, United States: Huse et al. (2007)
Relevance: Evaluates imatinib, the first-line treatment listed in section 2, against no treatment in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor in the United States.
> “A cost-effectiveness model of GIST treatment was developed.”
> “Long- term survival and duration of imatinib mesylate benefit were projected by fitting curves to 52-month follow-up data from a phase II clinical trial of imatinib and projecting weekly probabilities of survival and continued treatment over 10 years.”
> “Costs, life-years and quality- adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated over the 10-year time horizon and discounted to treatment initiation at an annual rate of 3%.”
> “Imatinib mesylate therapy for unresectable GIST was projected to increase life expectancy to 5.8 years, an increase of 2.7 years over the control group.”
> “This translated into an increase of 1.9 QALYs at a marginal cost of $US74 369, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of $US38 723 per QALY.”
Source: [Huse et al. (2007)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17217313/)
#### Adjuvant imatinib for three years versus one year after resection of Kit-positive gastrointestinal stromal tumors, United States: Sanon et al. (2013)
Relevance: Evaluates a longer against a shorter duration of adjuvant imatinib after resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumor from a United States payer perspective, in a model with recurrence-free, recurrence, and death states.
Access: Free full text
> “This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with 3 years vs 1 year of imatinib from a US payer’s perspective.”
> “A Markov model was developed to predict GIST recurrence and treatment costs. Patients enter the model after surgery and transition among three health states: free of recurrence, recurrence, and death.”
> “Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated and discounted at 3%/year.”
> “All other costs from the literature were adjusted to 2010 using the consumer price index (CPI)”
> “All outcomes were tabulated over the lifetime of the population.”
> “Patients receiving 3 years of imatinib had higher QALYs (8.53 vs 7.18) than those receiving 1 year of imatinib. Total lifetime per-patient cost was $302,100 for 3 years vs $217,800 for 1 year of imatinib.”
> “Incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 3 years vs 1 year of imatinib was $62,600/QALY.”
> “At a threshold of $100,000/QALY, 3 years vs 1 year of imatinib was cost-effective in 100% of simulations.”
Source: [Sanon et al. (2013)](https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.709204)
#### Adjuvant imatinib treatment sequences versus no adjuvant therapy after resection of high-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumour, Thailand: Bussabawalai et al. (2019)
Relevance: Evaluates adjuvant imatinib after resection of high-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumor in Thailand, in treatment sequences that include imatinib and sunitinib at recurrence.
> “A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes of using adjuvant imatinib treatment and other treatment alternatives if recurrence occurred compared with the current situation of no adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients after surgery.”
> “Costs were collected and calculated for the year 2014 from a societal perspective. Future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.”
> “Three years of adjuvant imatinib treatment followed by imatinib treatment and best supportive care if recurrence occurred after or during adjuvant therapy, respectively, was the best option as it produced more health outcomes (1.23 life years (LYs) and 1.16 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) compared to no adjuvant therapy while yielding the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 1,648,801 Thai Baht (THB) per QALY gained.”
> “Three years of adjuvant imatinib treatment followed by sunitinib treatment if recurrence occurred had an ICER of 2,608,264 THB per QALY gained compared to the best option, while other options were dominated.”
> “However, in the Thai context, it was not cost-effective at the current price.”
Source: [Bussabawalai et al. (2019)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6323771/)
### 1.4 Related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
## 2 Utility weights
### 2.1 Utility weights from analyses of Bezuclastinib
No evidence found.
### 2.2 Utility weights for the same indication
#### Utility weights at baseline, after progression, and for sunitinib adverse events, gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Centanni et al. (2025)
Relevance: Utilities at baseline and after tumor progression in gastrointestinal stromal tumor and utilities for sunitinib adverse events, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hand-foot syndrome, and fatigue.
> “The specific UVs for each condition were based on literature”
Source: [Centanni et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11724784/)
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “baseline” | “0.712” |
| “neutropenia” | “0.9777 (≥ grade 2)” |
| “thrombocytopenia” | “0.9895 (≥ grade 3)” |
| “thrombocytopenia” | “0.892 (≥ grade 4)” |
| “HFS” | “0.8813 (≥ grade 3)” |
| “fatigue” | “0.999 (≥ grade 1)” |
| “fatigue” | “0.9107 (≥ grade 3)” |
| “progression” | “0.577” |
Source: [Centanni et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11724784/)
> “with the baseline UV accounting for the reduced quality in life owing to presence of GIST in all patients.”
Source: [Centanni et al. (2025)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11724784/)
#### Utility weights for progression-free gastrointestinal stromal tumour on and off sunitinib, on best supportive care, and after progression: Chabot et al. (2008)
Relevance: Utilities for progression-free gastrointestinal stromal tumor during the on-treatment and off-treatment weeks of the sunitinib cycle, on best supportive care, and after progression.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access.
Source: [Chabot et al. (2008)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18372169/)
#### Utility weights for gastrointestinal stromal tumour during sunitinib treatment and rest weeks, on best supportive care, and after progression: Paz-Ares et al. (2008)
Relevance: Utilities for metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumor after imatinib progression or intolerance, during the treatment and rest weeks of each sunitinib cycle, on best supportive care, and after progression.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access.
Source: [Paz-Ares et al. (2008)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19068454/)
### 2.3 Utility weights for the same disease in other populations or settings
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressed gastrointestinal stromal tumour: Tamoschus et al. (2017)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and progressed states of gastrointestinal stromal tumor from a model of regorafenib.
Access: Not open access
Not quoted: The utility weights are reported in the full text, which is closed access.
> “Drug acquisition costs and utilities were derived from clinical trial data and published literature; non-drug costs were not included.”
Source: [Tamoschus et al. (2017)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28361439/)
#### Utility weights for progression-free and progressed advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Liao et al. (2021)
Relevance: Utilities for the progression-free and progressed states of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor from a United States model of ripretinib.
> “the utilities of progression-free disease and progression disease were estimated according to published utilities equal to 0.767 for progression-free disease and 0.647 for progression disease”
Source: [Liao et al. (2021)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8685288/)
#### Utility weights for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor on treatment and on best supportive care, and a decrement for progression: Banerjee et al. (2020)
Relevance: Utilities for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor on treatment and on best supportive care, with a disutility for progression on first-line, second-line, and third-line treatment.
> “Health utilities for this study were defined previously using prospective EQ-5D surveys”
> “The health utility for a patient with metastatic GIST was defined as 0.935 while the health utility of a patient with metastatic GIST on best supportive care was defined as 0.577.”
> “Three opportunities for disease progression (first-line, second-line, and third-line treatments) were included in the model and were associated with healthy utility decrease of 0.12 for each disease progression.”
Source: [Banerjee et al. (2020)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7522695/)
#### Utility weights for recurrence-free, recurrent, and second-recurrence states, best supportive care, and discontinuation of adjuvant imatinib, gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Sanon et al. (2013)
Relevance: Utilities for recurrence-free, first-recurrence, and second-recurrence states of gastrointestinal stromal tumor and for best supportive care, with a utility for discontinuation of adjuvant imatinib.
Access: Free full text
Not quoted: The utility values for the recurrence health states are reported in Table 2 of the full text, which the publisher's page shows only in a pop-up table that this page does not quote.
> “Recurrence, mortality, costs, and utilities were derived from clinical trial and published literature.”
> “In the model, it was assumed that GIST patients who were surgically resected and without recurrence had the same utility as healthy individuals (Table 2).”
> “Utilities associated with disease states are applied as multipliers to the age-specific healthy utility values”
> “Based on their input, patients on adjuvant imatinib were assigned a utility value 0.02 points higher than patients who discontinued adjuvant imatinib due to adverse events.”
Source: [Sanon et al. (2013)](https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2012.709204)
#### Utility weights by recurrence status and treatment received, gastrointestinal stromal tumour after resection: Bussabawalai et al. (2019)
Relevance: Utilities for gastrointestinal stromal tumor without recurrence and after recurrence by treatment received, including sunitinib and best supportive care.
| Health state | Utility |
| --- | --- |
| “No recurrence and no adjuvant imatinib treatment” | “0.89” |
| “No recurrence and receiving adjuvant imatinib treatment” | “0.79” |
| “Recurrence and receiving imatinib treatment” | “0.66” |
| “Recurrence and receiving sunitinib treatment” | “0.58” |
| “Recurrence and receiving best supportive care” | “0.42” |
Source: [Bussabawalai et al. (2019)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6323771/)
#### Utility weights for successful treatment and for treatment failure and progression, advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour: Huse et al. (2007)
Relevance: Utilities for successful treatment and for progression of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor.
> “Utility associated with successful treatment was estimated at 0.935 and that of treatment failure and progressive disease at 0.875.”
Source: [Huse et al. (2007)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17217313/)
### 2.4 Utility weights for related diseases and analogous treatments
No evidence found.
## 3 Search strategy
| Dataset | Query | Results |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Methods | bezuclastinib OR "CGT9486" OR "PLX9486" | 0 |
| Ratios | "gastrointestinal stromal" OR GIST | 23 |
| Methods | "gastrointestinal stromal" OR GIST | 14 |
| Methods | avapritinib OR ripretinib OR Ayvakit OR Qinlock | 1 |
| Weights | "gastrointestinal stromal" OR GIST | 40 |
| Methods | imatinib AND sunitinib | 4 |
| Methods | regorafenib AND (GIST OR "gastrointestinal stromal" OR imatinib) | 1 |
| Methods | "KIT inhibitor" OR "mastocytosis" | 0 |
## Related pages
- [Bezuclastinib: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor.md)
- [Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: Terms and abbreviations](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/terms-and-abbreviations) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/terms-and-abbreviations.md)
- [Bezuclastinib: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/executive-summary) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/executive-summary.md)
- [Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: Product information and disease description](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/product-information-and-disease-description) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/product-information-and-disease-description.md)
- [Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: Clinical evidence](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/clinical-evidence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/clinical-evidence.md)
- [Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: Economic information and modeling report](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/economics) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/economics.md)
- [Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: References](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/references) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/references.md)
- [Bezuclastinib in Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: prevalence by geography](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/prevalence) · [Markdown](https://www.evicenter.com/drugs/bezuclastinib--gastrointestinal-stromal-tumor/prevalence.md)