ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-L1 testing associated with pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.
Article in International journal of clinical 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.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of encorafenib in untreated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in China.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Article
- PD-L1 Scoring Models for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China: Current Status, AI-Assisted Solutions and Future Perspectives.Thoracic cancer · 2025Review
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
backgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in China, and pembrolizumab shows differential efficacy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with different PD-L1 expression levels.
aimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 testing associated with pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of NSCLC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.
methodOver a lifetime horizon, a three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 testing and no PD-L1 testing. In the PD-L1 testing group, patients were stratified by PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 50%, 1-49%, or < 1% and received pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone, respectively. In the non-PD-L1 testing group, all patients received pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Model inputs were obtained from published literature and a healthcare price database, and clinical outcomes from two randomized clinical trials were used. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was estimated for the PD-L1 testing group versus the non-PD-L1 testing group. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess robustness of results.
resultsUsing PD-L1 testing to guide treatment led to cost savings of $49,392.7 and a reduction in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.234, resulting in a positive NMB of $46,421.7 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $12,680.8/QALY (GDP per capita in China, 2023). Findings were robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses.
conclusionUsing PD-L1 testing to guide first-line pembrolizumab treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC is a cost-effective strategy at a WTP threshold of $12,680.8/QALY for China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39804416What 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.