ArticleThe oncologist2025
Evaluation of a risk-sharing agreement for atezolizumab treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a strategy to improve access in low-income countries.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Implementing performance-based risk-sharing agreements in non-small cell lung cancer immunotherapy: a real-world data case study.Health economics review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO) is a promising approach to maximize clinical benefits for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PD-L1 expression serves as a predictive factor for treatment outcomes with IO. However, the high cost of this treatment creates significant barriers to access. Substantial evidence demonstrates the sustained clinical benefits experienced by patients who respond to immunotherapy. While IOs show promise in NSCLC treatment, their high cost poses access barriers.
aimThis study focused on a prospective cost analysis conducted at a high-specialty health facility to assess the economic implications of implementing a risk-sharing agreement (RSA) for atezolizumab in NSCLC.
methodsThe study included 30 patients with advanced NSCLC, with the pharmaceutical company funding the initial cycles. If patients responded, a government program covered costs until disease progression.
resultsA median progression-free survival of 4.67 months across populations, rising to 9.4 months for responders. The 2-year overall survival rate for the response group was 64%, significantly higher than for non-response. Without an RSA, a total treatment cost of $881 859.36 ($29 395.31/patient) was reported, compared to $530 467.12 ($17 682.24/patient) with an RSA, representing a 40% cost reduction. In responders, the average cost per year of life per patient dropped by 22%. Risk-sharing, assessed through non-parametric tests, showed a statistically significant difference in pharmacological costs (P < .001).
conclusionImplementing RSAs can optimize resource allocation, making IO treatment more accessible, especially in low-income countries.
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.