ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib plus chemotherapy with or without benmelstobart versus chemotherapy alone for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of socazolimab plus chemotherapy vs. standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a U.S. and China perspective.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Benmelstobart Plus Anlotinib Is Unlikely to Be Cost-Effective for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Integrated Disease Burden and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The ETER701 trial demonstrated that benmelstobart combined with anlotinib and etoposide-carboplatin (EC) significantly extends survival in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), setting a new record for median overall survival. In contrast, anlotinib plus EC only significantly prolongs progression-free survival. However, there is currently no evidence evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these regimens as first-line treatments. Therefore, this study assesses the cost-effectiveness of these three first-line treatment options from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A time-varying Markov model was constructed to simulate the disease progression of a 62-year-old patient with ES-SCLC, assessing direct medical costs, health benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Both flexible and standard parametric models were included to fit and extrapolate survival data. The probabilities, costs, and health utilities required for the model were sourced from literature, databases, and expert consultations. Additionally, sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of various parameters on model uncertainty. Results: Compared to EC alone, the combination of benmelstobart, anlotinib, and EC added $80,879.12 in cost for 0.7288 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), an ICER of $110,970.19/QALY. Anlotinib plus EC added $4,107.86for 0.1951 QALYs, an ICER of $21,056.19/QALY. At a $37,598/QALY threshold, the cost-effectiveness probability for benmelstobart combination is 0%, and for anlotinib combination is 80.42%. A 73.79% price cut for benmelstobart is needed for cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: In China, benmelstobart combined with anlotinib and EC is not a cost-effective first-line treatment for ES-SCLC; however, reducing the price of benmelstobart by 73.79% could make this regimen cost-effective. In contrast, anlotinib combined with EC may represent a more cost-effective first-line treatment option.
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.