ArticleJournal of medical economics
Cost-effectiveness analysis of LungLB for the clinical management of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules.
Article in Journal of medical economics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness models of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently a need for additional diagnostic information to help guide treatment decisions and to properly determine the best treatment pathway for patients identified with indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs). The aim of this study was to demonstrate the incremental cost-effectiveness of LungLB compared to the current clinical diagnostic pathway (CDP) in the management of patients with IPNs, from a US payer's perspective.
methodsA decision tree and Markov model hybrid was chosen from a payer perspective in the US setting, based on published literature, to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of LungLB compared to the current CDP in the management of patients with IPNs. Primary endpoints of the analysis include expected costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each arm of the model, as well as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated as the incremental costs per QALY, and net monetary benefit (NMB).
resultsWe find that, with the inclusion of LungLB to the current CDP diagnostic pathway, expected LYs over the typical patient's lifespan increase by 0.07 years and QALYs increase by 0.06. The average patient in the CDP arm will pay approximately $44,310 over their lifespan, while a patient in the LungLB arm will pay $48,492, resulting in a difference of $4,182. The differentials between the CDP and LungLB arms of the model in costs and QALYs yield an ICER of $75,740 per QALY and an incremental NMB of $1,339.
conclusionThis analysis provides evidence that LungLB, in conjunction with CDP, is a cost-effective alternative compared to the current CDP alone in a US setting for individuals with IPNs.
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.