ArticlePloS one2020
Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Taiwan.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Estimating Costs Associated with Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs in Patients with EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving First-Line Treatment in the United States: An Insurance Claims-Based Descriptive Analysis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Health-Related Quality of Life and Utility Scores of Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Traditional Chinese Medicine in China.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Afatinib, Erlotinib, and Gefitinib as First-Line Treatments for EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Ontario, Canada.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Modulation of Pathological Pain by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of combining traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of hypertension: compound Apocynum tablets combined with Nifedipine sustained-release tablets vs Nifedipine sustained-release tablets alone.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) would improve patients' clinical benefits and save costs. Using real-world data, this study attempted to directly compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib.
methodsDuring May 2011-December 2017, all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) visiting a tertiary center were invited to fill out the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires and World Health Organization Quality of Life, brief version (WHOQOL-BREF), and received follow-ups for survival and direct medical costs. A total of 379 patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC under first-line TKIs were enrolled for analysis. After propensity score matching for the patients receiving afatinib (n = 48), erlotinib (n = 48), and gefitinib (n = 96), we conducted the study from the payers' perspective with a lifelong time horizon.
resultsPatients receiving afatinib had the worst lifetime psychometric scores, whereas the differences in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) were modest. Considering 3 treatments together, afatinib was dominated by erlotinib. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness of US$17,960/life year and US$12,782/QALY compared with gefitinib. Acceptability curves showed that erlotinib had 58.6% and 78.9% probabilities of being cost-effective given a threshold of 1 Taiwanese per capita GDP per life year and QALY, respectively.
conclusionErlotinib appeared to be cost-effective. Lifetime psychometric scores may provide additional information for effectiveness evaluation.
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.