Cost-utility analysis of second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel versus standard of care in Japan based on the ZUMA-7 trial.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Economic Evaluation of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel as a Second-Line Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in South Korea: A Cost-Utility Analysis Based on the ZUMA-7 Trial.Clinical drug investigation · 2026
   Article
2. Japanese hematologists' and oncologists' perceptions of patient preferences for shared decision-making.BMC research notes · 2026
   Article
3. Pharmacoeconomic Profiles of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Review

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as