ArticlePloS one2020
Cost-effectiveness of alectinib compared to crizotinib for the treatment of first-line ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in France.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05713006 (A Phase I/II Open-label Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib With Sequential Dose Escalation in Patients Diagnosed With ALK-rearranged Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
A Phase I/II Open-label Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib With Sequential Dose Escalation in Patients Diagnosed With ALK-rearranged Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring cellular plasticity and resistance mechanisms in lung cancer: Innovations and emerging therapies.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of ferric citrate hydrate in patients with iron deficiency anemia.International journal of hematology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of rilertinib versus osimertinib in second-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of gumarontinib versus savolitinib for the treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC with MET exon 14 skipping mutations in China using partitioned survival model.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluation of Targeted Therapies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase- and ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in India.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- The cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 6 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors as First-Line Treatment for ALK-Positive NSCLC in China.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Alectinib/Crizotinib Data in First-Line Therapy in Patients with Anaplastic LymphomakinasePositive Nonsmall Cell Lung Carcinoma with Poor Prognostic Features for Alectinib.Thoracic research and practice · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Tepotinib Versus Capmatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Mesenchymal-Epithelial Transition Exon 14 Skipping.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2023Article
- See Lung Cancer with an AI.Cancers · 2023Review
- Clinical Profile, Practice Pattern, and Outcomes With First-Line Therapy in ALK-Positive Lung Cancer: Real-World Data From Resource-Constrained Settings.JTO clinical and research reports · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalised versus standard dosimetry for selective internal radiation therapy with TheraSphere in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Cost analysis of the management of brain metastases in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC: alectinib versus crizotinib.Lung cancer management · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alectinib for first-line treatment of ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer compared to crizotinib in the French setting. This study used a partitioned survival model, with three discrete health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and death). Survival probabilities were derived from a randomised Phase III clinical trial comparing alectinib to crizotinib (ALEX). Beyond the length of the trial (18 months), the efficacy of both treatments was considered equivalent. Occurrence of adverse events or brain metastases were considered as inter-current events. Utilities (and disutilities for intercurrent adverse events) derived from the EQ-5D were applied. Costs were attributed using standard French national public health tariffs. Projected mean overall survival was 4.62 years for alectinib and 4.18 years for crizotinib. Projected mean progression-free survival was 30.30 months for alectinib and 16.13 months for crizotinib. The total number of quality-adjusted life years projected was 3.40 for alectinib and 2.84 for crizotinib. The projected total cost of treatment over the lifetime of the model was € 246,022 for alectinib and € 195,486 for crizotinib. This extra cost was principally attributable to treatment acquisition costs and management before progression. Alectinib was associated with lower costs related to brain metastases and to management post-progression. The incremental cost per life year gained was 115,334 €/year and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 90,232 €/QALY. First-line treatment of ALK+ NSCLC with alectinib provides superior clinical outcomes to crizotinib and is cost-effective in the French context.
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.