ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the tislelizumab versus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative safety and efficacy of tislelizumab-based regimens versus chemotherapy in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of tepotinib vs capmatinib as subsequent therapy in MET exon 14-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.Lung cancer management · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan as a second-line treatment for HER2-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of eight first-line treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: perspectives from the United States and China.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tislelizumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor in China to demonstrate superior efficacy in second-line or third-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab compared to docetaxel from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A dynamic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in comparison to docetaxel in second or third-line treatment. The efficacy data utilized in the model were derived from the RATIONALE-303 clinical trial, while cost and utility values were obtained from the drug data service platform and published studies. The primary outcomes of the model encompassed quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to validate the robustness of the base case analysis results. Results: The tislelizumab group demonstrated a cost increase of CNY 117,473 and a gain of 0.58 QALYs compared to the docetaxel group, resulting in an ICER value of CNY 202,927 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The administration of tislelizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC not only extends the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Moreover, this treatment demonstrates a favorable cost-effectiveness profile across the Chinese population.
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.