SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2019
A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in NICE technology appraisals of non-small cell lung cancer drugs over the last decade.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Mesenchymal stem cells promote erlotinib resistance in non-small cell lung cancer through the HGF-AKT/ERK1/2-OPN pathway.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Comparing the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab + pemetrexed plus platinum and pemetrexed plus platinum alone as a first-line therapy for Chinese patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.Translational cancer research · 2023Article
- Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Review
- APU-Net: An Attention Mechanism Parallel U-Net for Lung Tumor Segmentation.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Trends in Drug Costs and Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in The Netherlands Diagnosed from 2008 Through 2014.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Article
- LncRNA LINC01116 Contributes to Cisplatin Resistance in Lung Adenocarcinoma.OncoTargets and therapy · 2020Article
- The requirements for manufacturing highly active or sensitising drugs comparing Good Manufacturing Practices.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review and assess the quality of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsA systematic review was conducted to identify full-text original economic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC written in English and published from the year 2000 onwards. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) questionnaire.
resultsEleven out of 130 papers were chosen for this review. Comparative regimens consisted of a best supportive care, reverse strategy, bevacizumab, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, carboplatin plus gemcitabine or gefitinib. The methods most used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. All of the studies evaluated direct costs and used quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years gained (LYG) as outcome, with 3% and 3.5% discount rate. The studies assigned ICER that ranged from dominant to I$305,510.31/QALY and from I$31,209.55/LYG to I$66,540.20/LYG. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, seven studies concluded that erlotinib was cost-effective, two studies showed that erlotinib was cost-effective on specific patients with certain conditions, and two studies comparing erlotinib with reverse strategy did not find a difference in cost-effectiveness. The high quality of these studies was confirmed using the QHES tool: the mean score was 75.77 out of 100 (SD 9.38).
conclusionMost of these high-quality studies suggested that erlotinib was cost-effective in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30840166What 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.