SynthesisJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2025
Cost-effectiveness models of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A conceptual health economic modelling framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of molecular target-driven treatment regimens in oncology.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of datopotamab deruxtecan versus docetaxel for previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presents a formidable global health challenge owing to significant morbidity, high mortality rates, and substantial economic burden. Recent advances in targeted therapies and immunotherapies have transformed NSCLC treatment, but efficacy varies across patients. Tailoring treatment to patients can improve outcomes and potentially improve cost-effectiveness (ie, value for money) as well. For NSCLC, cost-effectiveness must often be estimated using economic modeling, and estimates are only as good as the models. Existing cost-effectiveness models are not necessarily suitable for evaluating personalized medicines.
objectiveTo identify and assess cost-effectiveness models of NSCLC.
methodsWe searched for studies indexed in PubMed and Embase from 2012 to October 2023 that described cost-effectiveness models of NSCLC. Study details were extracted, summarized, and evaluated for adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.
resultsWe identified 237 unique models, 40% of which were published in 2022 or 2023. Despite cross-model heterogeneity, most models used the same 3 health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death) combined with time-to-event equations that characterize risks. Thirty models included a diagnostic component, most of which considered guiding treatment selection using biomarkers. Adherence to the overall Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was generally incomplete, and adherence to a subset of model-related questions even more so.
conclusionsThe large number of models that were found, almost half of which were published since 2022, underscores the importance of cost-effectiveness analysis in NSCLC. Variable adherence to best practices suggests opportunities for improvement, however, and making high-quality, open-source models available to researchers may be valuable.
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.