Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39918787›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025

Cost-Utility Analysis of Genomic Profiling in Directing Targeted Therapy in Advanced NSCLC in Thailand.

Saowalak Turongkaravee, Surakit Nathisuwan, Thanyanan Baisamut, Jennis Meanwatthana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Saowalak TurongkaraveeSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1897-3495
Surakit NathisuwanDivision of Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, 447 Sri-Ayuthaya Rd, Phayathai, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-4828-4412
Thanyanan BaisamutDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jennis MeanwatthanaDivision of Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, 447 Sri-Ayuthaya Rd, Phayathai, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand. jennis.mea@mahidol.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0308-6845

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSequential next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing has demonstrated cost-effectiveness in guiding targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in developed countries. However, its cost-effectiveness in developing countries remains uncertain.

objectiveThe aim was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing sequential NGS testing with the current approach of single epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing combined with first-line targeted therapy, as implemented under Thailand's Universal Health Coverage scheme for aNSCLC.

methodHybrid decision tree and Markov models were developed to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with each strategy. The models simulate cohorts of aNSCLC patients who receive platinum-based chemotherapy or TKIs based on identified gene alterations. Patients enter the model at 60 years of age. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed from a societal perspective. The analysis employed a lifetime horizon and discounted costs and outcomes at a rate of 3%. Furthermore, uncertainty and scenario analyses were conducted.

findingsA sequential NGS testing strategy could identify an additional 19% of patients with biomarker-positive findings who subsequently received biomarker-driven targeted therapy compared to a single EGFR testing strategy. The number needed to screen to identify a single gene mutation and administer first-line TKI was six for the sequential NGS testing strategy. Compared to the single EGFR testing, the ICER of the sequential NGS testing strategy was 1,851,150 THB/QALY (US$51,335). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY (US$4437), the single EGFR testing strategy demonstrated 100% cost-effectiveness. In contrast, the sequential NGS testing was not deemed cost-effective. The sensitivity of the ICER was influenced by the overall survival rates associated with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy.

interpretationSequential NGS testing identified a greater number of patients with aNSCLC eligible for targeted therapies, resulting in improved survival rates and enhanced QALYs compared to single EGFR testing. However, in the context of Thailand, sequential NGS testing was not cost-effective. The single EGFR testing strategy emerged as the most cost-effective option for guiding first-line targeted therapy.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsMolecular Targeted TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision TreesErbB ReceptorsFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedProtein Kinase InhibitorsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsThailandErbB ReceptorsProtein Kinase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID39918787
PMCPMC12052874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.