A cost-utility analysis has been performed comparing taxanes, vinorelbine and standard therapy for metastatic breast cancer considering clinical efficacy, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) and costs. A decision model has been built. Clinical efficacy data were collected by literature review. Utility data and cost data were collected from previous studies and Dutch wholesale prices. Except for the MV standard therapy, VM has the lowest C/E ratio of $17,114/QALY, followed by paclitaxel ($30,270/QALY) and docetaxel ($49,739/QALY). VM yields the highest number of QALYs (0.47), compared to paclitaxel (0.35), docetaxel (0.34) and MV (0.29). Compared to the MV standard therapy, the incremental C/E of VM is $23,046/QALY, which is the lowest of all alternatives. We conclude that compared to paclitaxel, docetaxel and MV standard chemotherapy, VM is the most cost-effective second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer patients. There is a considerable variation in utility scores, depending on the methods or the data sources used. The C/E ratios were influenced most strongly by drug prices, utility and efficacy (in descending order of importance).