OBJECTIVES: The main objective for conducting this study was to evaluate economic evaluation through  the cost-effectiveness study  of oral chemotherapy regimens  we choose   vinorelbine oral capsule plus oral capecitabine versus docetaxel iv plus oral capecitabine in treatment of metastatic breast cancer, in the Egyptian patients previously treated with anthracycline, from the national fund perspective over a time horizon of 3 years. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Ministry of Health and Population was conducted.  A Markov model was applied with three health states.  Utility data were incorporated in the model to make adjusted results.   Costs used were the local ones according to the national fund list.  Discounting was applied at 3.5% annually both on costs and benefits.  The results obtained were in term of ICER and number of QALYs. Robustness of our findings was checked using sensitivity analyses. Results are expressed in  QALYs RESULTS: During the three-year time horizon, the total cost for oral chemotherapy regimen vinorelbine oral plus capsitabine  was associated  with a 2.46QALY gained.  The total for docetaxel IV. was associated with  0.84 QALY gained.That yields a difference of and 1.62 in QALY. The oral chemotherapy regimen( Vinorelbine oral plus capsitabine   is economically dominating the docetaxel strategy, producing more benefit at a lower cost.   The one-dimensional sensitivity analysis indicated that the overall survival medians of both drugs had the largest impact on the results. When conducting sensitivity analysis using plausible ranges, Vinorelbine oral remained economically dominant in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of oral chemotherapy regimen in metastatic breast cancer vinorelbine oral to the national fund Pay-at-The-Expense-of-the-State (PTES) system was likely be cost saving based strictly from its perspective.