ArticlePharmacoEconomics2015
Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of precision diagnostic testing for precision medicine approaches against non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review.Molecular oncology · 2021Pooled it
- The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Pooled it
- Economic Value of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Cancer Drugs with Clinically Relevant Drug-Gene Associations: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-utility analysis ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of PD-L1 Testing in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Using In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Versus Laboratory-Developed Test (LDT).Oncology and therapy · 2022Article
- Evaluation of osimertinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Article
- Optimal sequencing strategies in the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2020Review
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: a scoping review.International journal of public health · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of EGFR Mutation Testing And Afatinib Versus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin As First-Line Therapy For Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer In China.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab for Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Article
- Economic Considerations in the Use of Novel Targeted Therapies for Lung Cancer: Review of Current Literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Review
- Article
- Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Up To Three Lines of Chemotherapy Treatment Plans for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is among the top causes of cancer-related deaths. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors can increase progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EGFR mutation analysis and first-line therapy with erlotinib for mutation-positive patients compared with non-individualized standard chemotherapy from the perspective of German statutory health insurance.
methodsA state transition model was developed for a time horizon of 10 years (reference year 2014). Data sources were published data from the European Tarceva versus Chemotherapy (EURTAC) randomized trial for drug efficacy and safety and German cost data. We additionally performed deterministic, probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe individualized strategy incurred 0.013 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional costs of € 200, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 15,577/QALY. Results were most sensitive to uncertainty in survival curves and changes in utility values. Cross-validating health utility estimates with recent German data increased the ICER to about € 58,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the individualized strategy is cost-effective, with a probability exceeding 50 % for a range of possible willingness-to-pay thresholds. LIMITATIONS: The uncertainty of the predicted survival curves is substantial, particularly for overall survival, which was not a primary endpoint in the EURTAC study. Also, there is limited data on quality of life in metastatic lung cancer patients.
conclusionsIndividualized therapy based on EGFR mutation status has the potential to provide a cost-effective alternative to non-individualized care for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. Further clinical research is needed to confirm these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.