ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Tumor Treating Fields treatment in Chinese patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- International cost-effectiveness analysis in osimertinib after chemoradiotherapy in stage III EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Tumor treating field plus chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An international cost-effectiveness analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Advancement in tumor treating fields of mechanism, clinical applications, and future directions.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Tumor treating fields plus temozolomide maintenance after radiochemotherapy in Chinese grade 4 gliomas: Efficacy and predictive biomarkers.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The LUNAR trial demonstrated the significant efficacy and safety of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) plus standard-of-care (SOC) [immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and docetaxel (DTX)] for patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). However, it remains uncertain as to whether the high costs are justified by the corresponding survival benefits. Here, the cost-effectiveness of using TTFields plus SOC for treating mNSCLC was evaluated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model with a 15-year time horizon was established and used to comparedeveloped to enable the simulation of treatment-associated costs and patient outcomes when comparing TTFields plus SOC to SOC alone. Primary outcomes for these analyses included total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values. The impact of paramere uncertainty on model outcomes was evaluated through sensitivity analyses. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to extend these results. Results: While TTFields plus SOC exhibited a $74,688 increase in total costs relative to SOC ($96,092 vs. $21,404), it was associated with 0.38 additional QALYs (1.08 vs. 0.82 QALYs) for an ICER of $284,490/QALY. This value exceeded the $35,983/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold selected for these analyses by a wide margin. Relative to ICI and DTX treatment, the incremental costs of TTFields plus ICI and TTFields plus DTX were $78,115 and $71,307, respectively, with corresponding gains of 0.42 and 0.13 QALYs, yielding ICERs of $187,434/QALY, and $546,386/QALY. The parameter that most strongly impacted the results of these analyses was the cost of TTFields. Conclusion: The results indicated that given current treatment costs, TTFields plus SOC was insufficiently cost-effective in treating patients with mNSCLC in China, although TTFields plus ICI yields substantial health benefits.
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.