In the March 2019 issue of Pharmacoeconomics, Guy et al. evaluated the cost effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib, and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive relapse ovarian cancer. The study used a three-state, means-based decision-analytic model with the following health states: progression-free survival (PFS); progressed disease; and death. The study assumed a mean overall survival (OS) benefit of double the mean observed PFS benefit based on immature evidence from olaparib Study 19 (olaparib phase II trial). Findings suggested niraparib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$68,287 and US$108,287 per quality-adjusted life-year gained as compared to RS in the germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAmut) population and the non-gBRCAmut population, respectively. As compared to olaparib and rucaparib, findings suggest niraparib was less costly and more effective. Overall, the study found that niraparib ranges from good value for money to cost saving depending on the comparator. However, this publication failed to reference publicly available research within this same line of inquiry.